Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for further consideration read.

Mr. Speaker: To be further considered what day?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Myer Galpern): No day named.

Mr. Speaker: No day named.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Animals (Experiments)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that over 100,000 animals are used each year in various forms of research and experimentation, whether he is satisfied that the employment of animals on such a scale is justified; and if he will provide information on the types of animals used and the nature of the experiments and tests to which they are subjected.

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Question is answered, may I point out that an error has crept in. The figure of "over 100,000 animals" should be "over 5 million animals".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): My right hon. Friend's responsiblity is for the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, under which 5,379,084 experiments were per-

formed last year. The available information about these experiments is published in annual returns made to Parliament. We intend to provide more information in these returns as soon as new reporting arrangements can be introduced.

Mr. Jenkins: Does not my hon. Friend remember that the Littlewood Committee, which reported 11 years ago, recommended that the 1876 legislation should be revised? Does she recall that Little-wood recommended that in the meantime there should be no tinkering? Is it not the case that in those 11 years there has been a lot of tinkering but no legislation? Therefore, will not my hon. Friend agree and accept that this large amount of experimentation on animals is totally unacceptable? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] How many inspectors—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will realise that he is setting a very bad example.

Mr. Jenkins: May I finish my sentence, Mr. Speaker? How many inspectors does my hon. Friend's Department employ to supervise these 5 million experiments?

Dr. Summerskill: The Cruelty to Animals Act is supervised by my right hon. Friend. It is constantly being reviewed. At the moment, the advisory committee is having its constitution and role re-examined. There are 14 inspectors who make approximately 5,000 visits a year. There is no reason to believe that the working of the Act is not satisfactory in supervising experiments carried out on animals.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady has stated that about 5,000 visits are made annually. Can more information be given about the information provided by these visits, and will the hon. Lady say whether any prosecutions have been mounted as a result of visits by the inspectors to any laboratory animals? If there have been such prosecutions, will the hon. Lady say when they took place?

Dr. Summerskill: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the latest annual report of the inspectorate entitled "Experiments on Living Animals". The last section of that report deals with the personnel in the inspectorate, the number of visits


made and the irregularities brought to light by the inspectors.

Illegal Immigration

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now propose some new initiatives to reduce drastically the number of immigrants entering Great Britain illegally.

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he is taking to prevent illegal immigration into Great Britain.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The Immigration Service and the police are fully aware of the need to combat illegal entry. Both have established special units to counter this, and there is close cooperation with the authorities in neighbouring countries. While I am satisfied that all practicable and reasonable measures for countering illegal entry are taken, these measures and the resources devoted to them are kept under review.

Mr. Smith: In spite of that, is it not a fact that the scale of illegal immigration to this country is increasing? While I realise that it was the fault of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, may I ask why something more positive was not done by the Home Office? Was it really a question of incompetence, or was it rather the fact that for political considerations the Government have decided to turn a blind eye to this question?

Mr. Rees: There is no question of turning a blind eye to illegal entry. The hon. Gentleman talks about the scale of it. The way he talks is not in accordance with the advice I am given. He should be careful not to confuse illegal entry, which is a term of art in immigration, with the problem of overstaying in this country, which is a different matter. He is very wrong to talk about a lack of resources directed to illegal entry.

Mr. Clemitson: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to improve interview procedures so that people who have a genuine right to enter the United Kingdom are not refused entry?

Mr. Rees: The interviewing takes place either here or in the country of

origin. My hon. Friend will find that I have something to say in reply to a later Question about steps taken abroad. When people arrive here, if their documentation is weak the situation is extremely difficult, which is one of the reasons why it is very much better to interview before arrival at the port of entry.

Mr. Budgen: Would the Home Secretary agree that the problem of overstaying is at least as great as that of illegal entry, and, indeed, may be greater? What proposals has he for dealing with this problem? In particular, has he any proposal for changing the law so as to enable immigration officials to require visitors from the Commonwealth to register with the police while they are lawfully here?

Mr. Rees: I certainly have not put my mind to that last point, but I recall that we considered it when I was a junior Minister in the Department. The first step is the control on entry, which marks us as different from Europe and the methods used there. I should not like to see, after that point, agents checking and checking in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, as is done in many parts of the Continent. I am concerned about the problem of overstaying, because it fuels many of the arguments that are used by people who have different arguments to put. We shall do anything we can in that direction, but I shall not turn to a European system of checking.

Commonwealth Immigrants

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the number of Commonwealth immigrants into this country was nearly 16,000 in the first six months of this year compared with 14,500 in the corresponding period of 1975.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The figures relate to the numbers of Commonwealth citizens, including non-patrial United Kingdom passport holders, accepted for settlement on arrival in the United Kingdom. The increase was mainly due to the speeding up in the Indian subcontinent of the rate of issue of entry clearances to wives and children waiting to join heads of household already settled in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Home Secretary aware that these figures will cause considerable concern to large sectors of our population who had hoped to see a reduction rather than an increase? Is he aware that when the present Prime Minister was Home Secretary the rate of immigration had dropped to 37,000 per annum, and that it is now rising higher than the 53,000 per annum of last year?

Mr. Rees: With regard to total figures, one must look very carefully at what the individual figures mean. In the first half of 1976—to take a precise figure which I have here—669 more wives and 785 more children were admitted as a result of the speed-up. Having read the debates that have taken place here, I think we should get away from the idea of a pool which grows bigger and bigger. That cannot be the case. It is much better for us all if we can reduce the pool quickly.

Miss Joan Lestor: The only unrestricted immigration into this country today is from the EEC countries. In addition, 6,000 work permits are issued to the catering trade for foreign nationals to come here to work, and the number of Filipino girls coming into this country mainly for domestic work is increasing all the time. Would it not therefore be better, when we are discussing immigration questions, to deal with the whole area of immigration and not concentrate on coloured immigration, which does not help the race situation in Britain?

Mr. Rees: There is no doubt that the number of people coming here from the Commonwealth with work permits has fallen to almost nothing. The figures that my hon. Friend gave in respect of Europe and the rest of the world are far more meaningful.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real worry about the pool of dependants in the Indian subcontinent is that the size of the pool is totally unknown? Until it is known, can it be wise or right to speed up the numbers of those coming from that sub-continent?

Mr. Rees: Allowing the dependants of people settled here to come cannot increase the pool. When I came to the Department I found that the Franks Com-

mittee was looking at this matter and, as I shall have reason to say later, I understand that the report is finished. I believe that the best thing now is to look at the Franks Committee's report. I have not read the report, but it cannot possibly resolve all the questions that need to be asked about this. However, it will be available shortly.

Murder Convictions

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of convictions for murder in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and by what percentage this total exceeds or is less than the comparable figure 5, 10 and 15 years previously, respectively.F

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): There were 107 persons found guilty of murder in England and Wales in 1975. This represents an increase of 10 per cent. on the figure for 1970, 88 per cent. on the figure for 1965 and 155 per cent. on the figure for 1960.

Mr. Taylor: In view of those disturbing and alarming figures, showing an increase in murder convictions of 155 per cent. in the past 15 years since the introduction of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, does the Minister think that it would be right for the House of Commons to reconsider the whole issue of capital punishment once again very soon?

Mr. John: The House of Commons has on a number of occasions considered this. I believe that the last occasion was in December 1975 when, on a free vote, with support from all parties, it was thought right that the death penalty should not be reintroduced; and that is my personal view.

Mr. Christopher Price: In considering the issue of capital punishment, will my hon. Friend bear in mind my constituent Ronald Leighton in the Confait case, who was found guilty of murder in 1972 and whose conviction was quashed three years later? Is it not wise to bear in mind that convictions of murder in our courts do not always correspond to what actually happened?

Mr. John: As my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr.


Taylor) will know, we have always said that conviction rates are not a reliable indicator of the incidence of murder. To quote but one example, if three persons are involved in one murder there could be three convictions, and that gives a false picture. The more important point that my hon. Friend makes is that the finality of the death penalty means that when mistakes are made they are irrevocable. I think that all of us would hesitate very long before having any one of those mistakes on our conscience.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any reason to believe that with the abolition of capital punishment there have been more convictions for murder rather than convictions on diminished charges?

Mr. John: That is one of the things that statistics by themselves do not show. It may be possible that that is so. Another factor may be the introduction of majority verdicts by the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

Young Offenders

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present methods of dealing with young offenders.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government's views on this subject were set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 6494, containing their observations on the report from the Expenditure Committee on the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which was published in May. They include a number of proposals for strengthening the law, consultations on which are now proceeding.

Mr. Roberts: Is it not clear by now that the juvenile courts should have power to order that persistent offenders should be kept in secure accommodation when they are placed in the care of local authorities? Is it not equally clear that it is wrong that faceless officials of the social services departments should have more power than the courts to decide the fate of certain offenders?

Mr. Rees: I am not sure in this field. I have been at it for only a short while, but after a time I should be able to talk with more certainty about these points.

Indeed, I feel that in such matters the less certain one is the nearer to wisdom one gets. There is a problem of a small number—a minority—of particularly difficult and recidivist juvenile offenders. It is a matter of resources in one aspect. There is a problem about the relationship of the bench to social workers—I would not call them faceless—and in the Department we should like to do all we can with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security as soon as possible.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is not satisfactory to remand to Prison Service establishments over 5,000 schoolchildren every year? With regard to young offenders generally, would not my right hon. Friend also agree that incarceration in penal establishments does not in any way affect their reconviction rate and that what we need, if we are to deal effectively with the problem, are far more imaginative alternatives than are being pursued at the moment?

Mr. Rees: Imagination and alternative methods of sentencing—this is the view I have formed in the short time that I have been looking at the issue—are undoubtedly matters that we should all consider. But that does not invalidate one of the major problems that comes to my notice every day concerning a small number of recidivist young people who are remarkable for the things they do. Imagination is not the answer to that problem.

Mr. Lawrence: Does not the Home Secretary agree that it is time that teeth were given to the powers of magistrates to deal with the recidivist hard-core offenders about whom he is talking? What efforts have been made by his Department to reallocate some of the resources that are available to it for the provision of secure establishments where discipline is an important factor in the treatment of those young offenders?

Mr. Rees: Before my time in the Department, steps were taken with grant aid to do something in that respect. If the hon. Gentleman has any ideas with regard to the law, I shall be pleased to listen to him. I hope, if all goes well—I cannot say more than that—at least to make some marginal changes in the law, if possible in the next Session.

Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. (Arrest of Pickets)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has asked for a full report on incidents leading to the arrest of eight pickets outside the Grunwick film processing factory in North-West London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the nine people who were arrested by the police on 1st November have not yet been dealt with by the courts. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for me to comment.

Mr. Skinner: On a more general theme, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that in all these industrial incidents that take place year after year it is invariably those who are defending the rights of the workers who get arrested? Is it not high time that instructions or directives were given to the police to the effect that they have a duty to see that those in management who are paying low wages and twisting the employment laws of this country are tackled as well—and tackled first?

Mr. Rees: As long as it is understood that I am not talking about the case that my hon. Friend raised, I can say that generally there is a problem in this respect. I have always found in my own area that a great deal can be done by discussion and sorting-out in the first instance. I cannot comment on the case my hon. Friend has raised.

Television Licence Fees

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to introduce arrangements for people who give up colour television to receive a proportionate refund on the unexpired portion of their licence.

Mr. John: No, Sir. The grounds on which refunds may be given must be limited if the licensing system is not to become unmanageable.

Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that this situation is unfair, especially to elderly people who have been forced to give up their colour television sets due to financial hardship? Apart from the

Obvious analogy with motor licences, which are refundable, can the Minister explain why it is apparently administratively possible to allow a refund on the unexpired portion of a black-and-white television licence when a move is made upwards to colour but not when the move is in the other direction?

Mr. John: Hon. Members should realise that the licensing system was introduced because of its simplicity and that that is one of the ways in which we are able to keep television licence fees down. The more exceptions there are, the dearer will be the licence fees. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific point is that colour licences cover monochrome reception whereas the reverse is not the case.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend look at a related problem—that the British Broadcasting Corporation is obtaining money under false pretences by regularly showing old films which are not in colour but is charging a colour licence fee? Further, does my hon. Friend realise that the BBC is paying for these old films, imported from America, in hard currency? Is he further aware that licence-holders are threatened with a further increase in fees at a time when two-thirds of the films shown on television are in black and white? Can he stop this obtaining of money by false pretences on the part of the BBC?

Mr. John: I do not think it is for Members to question repetition. No doubt it is due to my age, but, frankly, I think that some of the black and white films that are shown are infinitely superior to some of the other, more recently made films, about which I receive complaints from Conservative Members.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are ugly rumours of a massive increase in the colour licence fee? Will the Home Secretary resist such a move with all his strength? If he feels that he needs the support of the House, will he seek an opportunity for a debate before any increase in the colour licence fee is announced?

Mr. John: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be grateful for such support as he can get on any matter. My answer is that rumours are rumours, and until we deal with facts we cannot comment.

Football Hooliganism

Mr. P. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take action in consultation with the police authorities to combat the problem of disorder and violence among football supporters.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am in touch with chief officers of police about methods of controlling football hooliganism. I also plan to meet representatives of the football organisations, and am keeping in touch with the other Ministers concerned.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in towns such as Derby there is mounting despair at the depredations of hooligans masquerading as football supporters? Will he also bear in mind that, as this is a national problem, it is for him to co-ordinate methods by which it can be tackled? To fine such people amounts that they can pay next day or to send them to prison at public expense is not the whole answer. Will my right hon. Friend enter into consultations with the public transport services and the football clubs to see that these people are deprived of entry into football games and transport to matches, since this would he a more severe penalty for many of them?

Mr. Rees: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I live alongside a football ground. Conditions are bad for people who live in those areas. I have met right hon. and hon. Friends in other Departments who span the responsibilities. I have met the chief constables, and I hope to take further steps early in the new year.
With regard to fines, my hon. Friend has a point and I hope, if all goes well, to increase some of the maximum fines. I hope also to be able to take steps much in line with what my hon. Friend has suggested for different types of sentence.

Mr. Hannam: Does the Home Secretary agree that a large part of the problem is caused by pre-match drinking? What steps is he taking to deal with that part of the problem?

Mr. Rees: I have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for Transport. For a start, there are problems about the rules for having a drink on buses. It is not as easy as I thought when I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend. For example, a group travelling from the North to south of Birmingham to visit Anne Hathaway's cottage would not be a football crowd. If they stopped off at Aston Villa on the way there would be nothing to prevent them having a drink on board. There are little problems such as that. But we are looking at the whole matter.

Vandalism (Penalties)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to increase the penalties for crimes of vandalism.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Offences described as vandalism are usually prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The penalties range up to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment for most offences. I am satisfied that in general they are adequate. However, the maximum fine available on summary conviction would fall to be increased in the light of the recommendations of the James Committee, which I have under consideration.

Mr. Morrison: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the present penalties act as a deterrent?

Mr. Rees: That is a different matter. Dealing with what can be done under the Criminal Damage Act, if we can do something about fines it will improve the situation. But that is a different matter from my arguing, whether or not one doubles fines, that they necessarily act as a deterrent. It is a much more subtle matter.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest causes of vandalism is the excruciating boredom suffered by young people in cities such as Leicester who have nothing to do with their time when they have finished school? When considering that problem, will he do his best to see that there is increased provision and help for youth clubs and other facilities for young people?

Mr. Rees: That is important. Unemployment plays a part in this, together


with the planning of estates. Having said that, judging from reports produced by the Home Office he would be a brave chap who would say that those facts alone explain the growth of vandalism in the last quarter of a century.

Mr. Charles Irving: The penalties seem appropriate. Would it not be possible for the Home Secretary to persuade the magistrates to use them?

Mr. Rees: That is a different matter because, whatever else comes to the Home Office, I have no power to control what the magistrates do.

Parish and Town Council Elections (Voting)

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will extend postal voting for parish and town councils.

Mr. John: No, Sir. The extra costs Involved could not be justified in present circumstances.

Mr. Walters: Would not the Minister agree that it is desirable to make it as easy as possible for people to participate in parish elections, and that as the same ballot papers can be used for town and parish elections as for district elections the extra cost would be very limited? Therefore, should not amending legislation be introduced?

Mr. John: I believe that one could do something to combine the necessary forms. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that the amount of extra expenditure would be inconsiderable. With the present evidence of turn-out at these elections, it would not be justified.

Mr. Madden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is dissatisfaction when postal votes are available for district council elections but not for parish and town council elections, which are often held on the same day? Can he tell us what the increased cost would be? There is mounting concern about this. If we want to extend democracy, we should do everything possible to enable people to participate in all elections.

Mr. John: I accept that our aim is to make participation in local elections as widespread as is possible and to take

account of the problem. But because there would be differing postal registrations, even were I to accede to the principle which hon. Gentlemen have proclaimed this afternoon, there would still be a great opportunity not only for mistakes in counting but confusion in registration.

Mr. Marten: Following the Minister's argument about low turn-out, am I right in assuming that there will be no postal voting in the unhappy event of our having to go through direct elections to the European Parliament? The turn-out for that is likely to be even lower than in the worst boroughs in this country.

Mr. John: What the hon. Gentleman and I may speculate about the turn-out at those elections would perhaps not be universally accepted in the House.

Community Service (West Sussex)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the progress of the community service in West Sussex.

Mr. John: Community service arrangements already exist in six out of the nine petty sessions areas. An extension to the other three has been under consideration, but we cannot provide resources additional to those contained in the last rate support grant settlement.

Mr. Hordern: Will the Minister recognise that the purpose of community service is that people who have been found guilty of an offence should carry out their sentences in the service of the community instead of being sent to prison, at a considerable saving of cost to the public in general? Therefore, is it not common sense to extend the service to those three other parts of West Sussex, including Horsham and Crawley, which are in my constituency, at a considerable saving in cost to the general public? Surely this is one matter at which the Minister should look again.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that community service arrangements are valuable. That is why in 53 out of the 56 probation areas in England and Wales community service arrangements exist. As regards saving by making community service an alternative to imprisonment, the diversion of


comparatively few people to community service orders would not reduce the overheads which have to be borne by prison establishments. Only if a sufficiently large number were diverted from imprisonment to community service orders so that some prison accommodation could be closed would a saving be possible. I do not believe that that is what the hon. Gentleman is advocating in his Question.

Mr. Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that information reaching me from South Yorkshire suggests that the community service order arrangement has proved to be extremely successful and is to be welcomed? In view of that experience, which I think is fairly common, will my hon. Friend ensure the further rapid development of these community service arrangements?

Mr. John: My hon. Friend will know that there are exigencies of public expenditure, but within that limit we are satisfied with the development of the community service projects and I am pleased to note that my hon. Friend has that happy experience from his own part of the world.

Shoplifting

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas visitors have been charged with and convicted of shoplifting in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months for which records are available.

Mr. John: I regret that the information is not available: the statistics do not record the country of origin of offenders.

Mr. Janner: As it is well known that, unfortunately, visitors from overseas figure prominently in the number of shoplifters who are rightly convicted, will my hon. Friend warn such people that they are not at all welcome here on that basis? At the same time, as the Christmas shopping and shoplifting season approaches, will he warn people from overseas and in this country of the grave danger in this country of being wrongly charged with shoplifting?

Mr. John: I recognise that my hon. and learned Friend has taken a deep interest in this subject over many years. I deprecate shoplifting, whether it be by over-

seas visitors or people in this country. I am not xenophobic in that regard.

Mr. Adley: Will the Minister accept that there is a wholly different set of circumstances between what pertains in the West End of London and in other towns and cities, where many individual tragedies take place on wrongful conviction due to the trading methods of self-service stores? Will the Minister look again at his own Home Office working party's report, and if stores will not take the preventive measures recommended in that report will he consider introducing legislation to force them to do so?

Mr. John: I have knowledge of vases in my constituency in which tragedies of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman have taken place. The report itself did not recommend any Government action. It was directed at the stores and the reform of their trading methods. If the hon. Gentleman would care to submit any evidence which he has in his possession, I will certainly look at it.

Fire Service (Grant Aid)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis the level of grant aid for the fire services is determined; and what flexibility this allows to meet emergencies.

Dr. Summerskill: Estimated expenditure on the fire service is among the estimates of relevant local authority expenditure taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in determining the amount of the rate support grant.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that in my county of Gwynedd alone, £100,000 extra was spent by the fire service this year due to the effect of the drought on its work? Will the hon. Lady give an absolute commitment that in the rate support grant allocation next year extra funds will be available to make up for those expenses?

Dr. Summerskill: I am aware that in many parts of the country there has been greatly increased expenditure due to the drought. The possibility of increasing next year's grant to take account of heavy fire service expenditure this year has been considered in the context of the need to


avoid increases in local authority expenditure next year. As the House knows, on Monday 22nd November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will announce the Government's decision on the amount of rate support grant for 1977–78.

Summer Time

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received urging his responsibility for the fixing of summer time to be devolved to the proposed Scottish and Welsh Assemblies in respect of those parts of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Summerskill: None, Sir.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Lady realise that this unwanted proposal in the White Paper to devolve responsibility for summer time to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies must be one of the silliest decisions made by the present Government? Does she realise that if the Assemblies used those powers and if she wished to drive from Cardiff to Edinburgh she might have to correct her watch twice during the course of the journey? Will the hon. Lady withdraw the proposal now rather than force the House to have a lengthy debate on the subject in the coming months?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a decision of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies which has not yet been taken. It must not be assumed that the devolution of responsibility for summer time would mean that those Assemblies would decide to have different periods.

Mr. Watt: The Minister may not agree about the outcome of devolving responsibility for summer time, but does she agree that at least the economic climate in Scotland will be better?

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is a bizarre proposal? Is she aware that it could mean that the 10 o'clock news in London would be heard at 9 o'clock in Cardiff and at 11 o'clock in Edinburgh? If the idea of devolution is to unite the people of Britain, this is not the way to do it. Will my hon. Friend deny the report that if the proposal were accepted there would be a national supply of cuckoo clocks?

Dr. Summerskill: I can only repeat that no decision to that effect has been taken by Assemblies that haw, not yet even been set up. No doubt those Assemblies, when they consider the subject, will take into consideration the difficulties put forward by hon. Members.

Student Immigrants

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new steps he proposes to take to ensure compliance with the conditions upon which visas are granted to immigrant students.

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that no applicant seeking to enter the United Kingdom on a student's visa is permitted to do so until he has produced satisfactory evidence that he is able to benefit from the course for which he has applied.

Dr. Summerskill: The immigration rules for control on entry, laid before Parliament, require a person seeking entry for study in the United Kingdom to satisfy the officer to whom he applies of, among other matters, his ability to follow a full-time course of study. The rules for control after entry impose similar requirements on anyone seeking an extension of stay as a student. We have no plans for further controls.

Mr. Macfarlane: Is it not a fact that in recent years there has been an alarming growth in the number of overseas students who have come to this country and opted out of their courses soon after arriving? Would it not be right for the Home Office, the Department of Education and Science and local authorities to start monitoring this aspect very urgently?

Dr. Summerskill: We certainly have it in mind to seek the co-operation of colleges in resolving the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and drawing the attention of principals of colleges to the value of entry clearance being obtained by students before they come to this country.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend realise that many of us who are interested in education in the interests of developing countries believe that many, though not all, courses are best given in


the developing countries themselves? To what extent does the Home Office take that into account in deciding whether a visa should be given for training in this country?

Dr. Summerskill: The absence of sufficient courses in developing countries is a matter for another of my right hon. or hon. Friends. The courses in this country are either language courses or other educational courses for people from foreign or Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Forman: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that entry under a student visa is always governed by considerations of genuine aptitude and ability and that there are no loopholes in this system through which illegal immigrants can come?

Dr. Summerskill: This is why we have definite immigration rules for control on entry and why we are making every effort to see that the rules are adhered to.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my hon. Friend tell the House that not only are there these rules but there is also a very strict interpretation of them by entry certificate officers, to the point where even genuine students with a full course arranged, and with maintenance also arranged, cannot obtain entry into the country because it is suspected that they may not leave at the end of their course?

Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend can send me particulars of the specific cases to which he refers, I shall certainly look into them.

Mr. Alison: Leaving aside the procedures for entry, what machinery does the Home Office have for monitoring the requirements for an extension of courses or applications for permission to stay after the expiry of a right of stay, and is that monitoring regularly applied?

Dr. Summerskill: It is certainly applied regularly. The same conditions apply to the student extending his course as to the student coming in. Because we are anxious to see that the rules are adhered to, we co-operate fully with the Department of Education and Science.

Children and Young Persons Act 1969

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what pro-

gress his Department has made in implementing the recommendations contained in the Eleventh Report of the Expenditure Committee on the working of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government's response to the Expenditure Committee's recommendations was given in the White Paper published last May, Cmnd. 6494. The proposals contained in it concern a number of Government Departments. On a number of those which are primarily the concern of my Department, consultations and, where appropriate, other preparatory work are well in hand.

Mr. Sims: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that of the 40 recommendations in the report at least 13 are the direct responsibility of the Home Office, four have been rejected outright, one has been carried out and the remaining eight are still under consideration 14 months after the report was published? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the real concern amongst those dealing with juvenile offenders, and can he inject some sense of urgency into his Department?

Mr. Rees: It was for this reason that I met the Magistrates' Association and others a few weeks ago, and I hope that, not on the points of rejection but on other points, we shall have announcements to make soon.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When will the remanding of schoolchildren to Prison Service establishments be ended?

Mr. Rees: As soon as I can do it, because I think that it is wrong. But it is not enough to think that it is wrong. We need the proper resources, and they are not available to enable me to do what I want to do.

Mr. Bowden: When the Home Secretary met the representatives of the Magistrates' Association, did they tell him that they were concerned about a lack of facilities to keep violent young offenders under control, and did they urge him to provide more of these facilities?

Mr. Rees: Yes, they did. I made that point earlier in Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Mr. Corbett: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the heads of nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met some of the chairmen of the nationalised industries on 8th November.

Mr. Corbett: When my right hon. Friend next meets them, will he make it clear to Sir Frank McFadzean that people generally take a dim view of the boss of a State industry turning round and biting the hand that feeds him? Does he agree that it is the role of the chiefs of these public industries to sustain and promote those industries and the jobs within them rather than act as some subversive agency for the private sector?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I read Sir Frank McFadzean's speech with some interest. He only recently took up an appointment with British Airways under the Labour Government and he has already proposed a scheme for reorganisation, which has been put to the Ministers whom he criticises so heavily and has been accepted. Having known him for a long time, my own view of Sir Frank is that he is a most efficient business man but has an abysmal ignorance about either politics or government.

Mr. Adley: Will the Prime Minister tell Sir Frank that large numbers of his employees have recently twice come to this House to protest about the imposition of the closed shop upon all employees of British Airways and that they have been refused a meeting by top management to discuss the issue, have been refused access to the correspondence columns of British Airways News and have been refused a ballot? Whilst most people will wholeheartedly disagree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), nevertheless many people feel that it is up to the bosses of nationalised industries to ensure that they discover the views of their employees before pronouncing on them.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is criticising Sir Frank's knowledge of industrial relations or how

he carries them out. I agree with the hon. Member that it is important that Sir Frank should be keenly aware of these matters, and I will see that what the hon. Gentleman has said is drawn to his attention.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is still hell-bent on increasing the number of heads of nationalised industries that he must meet on any one occasion? What is the Government's intention on the future of the ship-repairing industry if the other place maintains its view?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what the other place will do. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is in league with it—

Mr. Steel: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: —and can tell us. It would be a great departure from the traditions of the Liberal Party if it were to be in league with that Chamber. In relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bil, I hope that the other place will take into account that, whatever may be the merits of any other measure, this measure was put to the country in the fullest way on two occasions, in February and October 1974. that it passed through the House of Commons without one defeat on the issues now before us and that, therefore, an unelected Chamber has no right to take its own view on an issue of this sort which has been before the electors.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the choice whether to nationalise the shipbuilding and aerospace industries is his and that of his Government alone and that there is nothing that can now be done to stop him if he wishes to go ahead? If he chooses not to do it, may I congratulate him on taking the right approach? However, let it be understood that they have not been nationalised by his choice.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what that convoluted question is supposed to mean. I totally disagree if it means that the elected Chamber should acquiesce in decisions taken by an unelected Chamber concerning items in a manifesto that has twice been put before the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES PRESIDENT-ELECT

Mr. Neubert: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to meet the President-elect of the United States of America.

Mr. Townsend: asked the Prime Minister when he intends to meet the President-elect of the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on 11th November.

Mr. Neubert: When the Prime Minister meets Mr. Carter, will he discuss with him the presence in this country of American citizens apparently hostile to Western security services? As Mr. Agee has been settled in the United Kingdom for some months, why has the taking of action been delayed for so long?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there is a Private Notice Question to the Home Secretary about this matter and I have no doubt that he will wish to deal with it when it is asked. However, in general, we take our own decisions on the issue of foreign nationals living in this country and I would not discuss the matter with President-elect Carter.

Mr. John Mendelson: In the reports he has received about the election campaign, has my right hon. Friend noticed—I hope with approval—that the President-elect has carried on a successful campaign in favour of increased public expenditure to create more jobs in the United States? Does he agree that the American trade union movement, which played a considerable part in President-elect Carter's success in the election, was particularly responsible for supporting this programme, with the result that the new Administration creates a fresh atmosphere of hope? Will my right hon. Friend therefore co-operate in this policy and adopt some of these wise counsels for his own Administration?

The Prime Minister: I do not find the economic circumstances of individual countries necessarily strictly comparable.

For example, unemployment in the United States is far higher than it is here. There may be a need for different types of measures for different countries. However, what is clear is that there is a growing interdependence among the economies of the Western world and that we cannot solve our problems if we each take decisions in isolation.

Mr. Townsend: Will the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Carter his strong and positive statement on the Cyprus question? Bearing in mind that Britain is a guarantor Power and that Cyprus is a fellow member of the Commonwealth, will he make certain that British policy on Cyprus is kept in line with that of the new Administration in Washington?

The Prime Minister: I could not guarantee that. We would each approach the problem of Cyprus in our own way. We would, of course, attempt to coordinate policies, and I have no doubt that there will be discussions between President-elect Carter's new Administration and the Foreign Secretary in due course on these issues. However, I would not guarantee to be subservient to the United States or to anybody else.

Mr. Whitehead: If President-elect Carter should raise with my right hon. Friend the systematic campaign carried on by Conservative Members to denigrate the loyalties, as well as the abilities, of hon. Members of this House, will he draw to his attention the remarks of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to the effect that it was unworthy for a party to attempt to claw its way back to power by a systematic witch-hunt of the very poor and of political opponents?

The Prime Minister: Would my hon. Friend expect anything else from the Opposition? Surely, the bankruptcy that they have shown and their complete incapacity to put forward any rational alternative policies must lead them either into elevating an unelected body such as the House of Lords or into attacking the integrity of their opponents—or trying to run scare campaigns on dole scroungers. That is what we always expect of the Conservative Party, and I am not a bit surprised.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 18th November.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public engagements for 18th November.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet, and I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. McCrindle: If the Prime Minister and the Cabinet continue to find difficulty in the taxation of short-term benefits, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country whether, as an alternative, we can look forward to the raising of the tax threshold in the forthcoming package of economic measures, thereby returning an incentive to the less-well-paid?

The Prime Minister: I do not intend to be discussing that matter either in the Cabinet or with my ministerial colleagues or others today.

Mr. Lamont: When the Prime Minister is fulfilling his engagements, may be not bump into some of the visiting officials of the IMF? If so, will he tell them whether, if he had taken up the job he once wanted himself as managing director of the IMF, he would seriously lend money to a country whose Chancellor of the Exchequer makes the pathetic statement that the British people would rather borrow more money than have a reduction in their living standards? Why do the Government always use the excuse of borrowing money for running away from the difficult decisions that have to be made?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of history, if it be of any significance, it is true that I was approached by the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer—who presumably had sufficient confidence in my abilities to believe that I might have filled that post—but there were other difficulties. I am glad that it did not come off, or I should not have had the opportunity of dealing with the hon. Gentleman now.
But to deal with the major part of the question, the International Monetary Fund officials, whom I do not expect to bump into today, are conducting their inquiries and discussions in the normal way. There is little doubt that the loan will be forthcoming, and that will he of very great assistance to us.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Yet another one?

The Prime Minister: Yes, yet another one—to try to make up for the deficits that the hon. Gentleman's party left. I see that I have to repeat the information for the sake of the hon. Gentleman. His party's Government entered office with a surplus on the balance of payments and they left with a deficit and a vast increase in the borrowing requirement and in the money supply. All these things we are now coping with.
But as to the future, in a rational atmosphere there is no reason why a country should not borrow against its assets, if by its economic policies it has a good opportunity of coming through. As long as we maintain the existing policy of relying on an export-led growth, of keeping a cash control over public expenditure and of putting the needs of industry first, there is every reason why we should see our way through this temporary period into the 1980s.

Mr. Thorpe: When the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues are meeting with him today, may we hope that they will be reviewing all his more recent speeches in order to give them greater clarity and effectiveness—in particular, his remark at the Guildhall that any increase in oil prices would be disastrous for the world at large? Will he agree, that being so, that it is essential that the North-South conference, meeting in Paris, should not be adjourned as has been suggested but should meet before OPEC meets, and that there should be some collective view from those who are the buyers of oil by which they can bring some influence to bear upon those who are selling the oil?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point that a substantial increase in the price of oil—or, indeed, any increase in its price—is likely to be disastrous for the poorest


countries and will hit the economies of even the better-off countries. I am not sure that it would be right to make a link between the CIEC Conference and oil prices. Although oil and energy is one aspect of it, the CIEC is dealing with a far wider problem. We want to make a constructive reply to the developing countries at the Conference on International Economic Co-operation, in relation both to what is called a common fund and other matters. I hope that this matter will be discussed by the Heads of Government when we meet at The Hague at the end of this month.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend take time to reflect upon the fact that the Opposition, when rooting out so-called abuses in the Welfare State, never once made mention of the £900 million of unpaid surtax, corporation tax and capital gains tax which is, in effect, being stolen from the Treasury and the ordinary wage earner?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that there is a great deal of unpaid taxation, and I hope that the Inland Revenue follows it up. If that is done quickly, it will certainly lessen the borrowing requirement that we shall otherwise have.

CONDUCT OF DEBATES (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Private Notice Question, I have a statement to make.
Yesterday a motion was considered in an atmosphere which did the House no credit. Disorderly recriminations were hurled across the Floor with such frequency that I was obliged on two occasions to warn the House that, if order was not restored, I should have to suspend the sitting.
One of my major responsibilities is to maintain the dignity of the House the best I can and respect for it outside. I am, therefore, determined that what happened yesterday should not be repeated and I remind the House that it lies within the power of the Chair to see that it is not.
I call attention to Standing Order No. 23:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman shall order any Member or Members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting.
I am perfectly well aware that today's proceedings are of vital moment and that every vote will count. But, if hon. Members cannot restrain themselves and cannot use parliamentary language, I must warn the House that I shall not hesitate to use my powers under Standing Order No. 23 if grossly disorderly expressions are exchanged across the Floor, from either side of the House.
It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House that any Member who is ordered to withdraw will not be able to participate in the rest of this day's proceedings.
May I say in conclusion that I find it slightly offensive to the Chair that, when hon. Members are asked to withdraw a statement, they do so in a half-hearted manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I am addressing the House in general. I expect hon. Members, when they are asked to withdraw, to do so in an unqualified manner.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised this matter with you beforehand. May I direct your attention to the Official Report of yesterday's proceedings which states that I said:
The hon. Member is a big twit."—[Official Report, 17th November 1976; Vol. 919, c.1355.]
That may or may not be true about whichever hon. Gentleman that was directed against, but I did not say it. If one is to be recorded in Hansard, I hope that in future what I really say about hon. Members will be recorded accurately. I trust that this will be corrected.

Mr. Speaker: I will ensure that a correction is made in Hansard. But may I remind the House again that the proceedings in this House are read throughout the Commonwealth, and the sort of language that has been wrongly attributed to the hon. Gentleman was, I believe, typical of the unworthy language that was used yesterday.

MR. HOSENBALL AND MR. AGEE (DEPORTATION)

Mrs. Hart: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his decision to deport Mr. Philip Agee.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I will make a statement about the cases of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball. I should like first to explain the relevant provisions of the law.
Under the Immigration Act 1971 there are powers to refuse entry to this country and powers to remove people from this country. As regards removal, there is, in the ordinary case, a statutory right of appeal. Where, however, deportation is ordered on the ground that it is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security, there is no statutory right of appeal.
There are, however, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Maudling) explained when the Bill was going through the House, non-statutory arrangements for representations to an independent advisory panel. A person who wishes to make representations to the panel is allowed to appear if he wishes; he is not entitled to legal representation but, to such extent as the advisers sanction, he may be assisted by a friend and arrange for third parties to testify on his behalf. The chairman of the advisory panel is Sir Derek Hilton and the other two members are Sir Clifford Jarrett and Sir Richard Hayward.
This non-statutory provision is available only in the case of deportation and not in cases of refusal of admission where security is involved. On 15th November Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball were informed that I had decided to make deportation orders against them under Section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 because I had concluded that their departure from the United Kingdom would be conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security.
Mr. Agee was informed that I had considered information that he had maintained regular contacts harmful to the security of the United Kingdom with foreign intelligence officers; had been and

continued to be involved in disseminating information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom; and had aided and counseled others in obtaining information for publication which could be harmful to the security of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Hosenball was informed that I had considered information that he had, while resident in the United Kingdom, in consort with others sought to obtain and had obtained for publication information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom and that this information had included information prejudicial to the safety of servants of the Crown.
Both men were also informed of the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act and of the non-statutory procedure which I have described and were told that they had 14 days in which to decide whether to make representations. They have also been informed that they may make any representations to me direct.
My decision at this stage is one of notice of intention to deport. Before proceeding to make deportation orders I shall consider the advice of the independent advisory panel, if the two men decide to submit their case to it, and I shall also consider any representations which they themselves may make or which may be made on their behalf to me direct. If I do make deportation orders, there is a statutory right of appeal against removal to the country specified in the removal directions on the ground that the person ought to be removed to a different country specified by him.
I reached my decision after the most careful consideration. I must emphasise that it was taken solely in the interests of the security of this country and of the personal safety of individuals in the service of the Crown.
I must tell the House that, because of the security issues involved, I am not prepared to go into greater detail than I have already given about the grounds for my decision.

Mrs. Hart: I recognise the great difficulty of discussing matters of this kind in the Chamber. I can relate my questions only to Mr. Agee, because I do not have any personal information about Mr. Hosenball, but given the closed and necessarily secret nature of the advisory panel—I accept that its members are extremely


good people—is the Secretary of State ready to see Mr. Agee?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend promise to read two pages, 567 and 570, of Mr. Agee's book "Inside the Company—CIA Diary", which I believe are relevant to the background of this case? It is my view from having talked to Mr. Agee that it is highly relevant to the questions which have led the Home Secretary to his conclusions.
Finally, will the Home Secretary be prepared privately—one appreciates that he cannot, on a question affecting the security of the State, be public about these matters—to give to Mr. Agee, before the advisory panel hearing, information about "the regular contacts" which are named in the letter to him and indicate whether these were clandestine or perfectly open contacts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I am about to finish; I shall not keep the House long.
Will the Home Secretary also indicate whether any of those contacts were detrimental to British security and whether, having considered these matters, he could regard these open contacts as being entirely consistent with legitimate journalistic research?

Mr. Rees: With regard to letters or visits, all I can say is that I will, of course, do anything that is within the rules. The letter that I sent to Mr. Agee is as far as I can go under the arrangements.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that I do not want to go into the nature of the visits. It is the purpose of the arrangements set up under the 1971 Act that I must take an administrative decision. The weight is taken off my shoulders, and three independent people consider it and take a judgment. That is what is involved, and if I say any more about the nature of contacts with foreign intelligence officers I may do more harm than good.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the Home Secretary aware that, although the House is rightly jealous of individual liberty, the security of the State must be the primary consideration? If, therefore, on the evidence available to him he believes that this action is necessary in the interests of the security of the State, he deserves, and I trust will receive, support from all parts of the House.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's words. My approach to the matter is clear in the way that the right hon. Gentleman put it. It is one thing to have free discussion—and in a democracy that matters—but the way in which that discussion takes place must be considered; and then I must make a judgment. That is what I have done in this instance.

Mr. Speaker: I shall allow just one question from each side of the House on this matter.

Mr. Whitehead: As these two cases are linked, and without going into the details of either, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the case of Mr. Hosenball? As the case against Mr. Agee is not to be put to examination in the courts, how can Mr. Hosenball—because the cases are linked—make any representations about the case against him when he meets the tribunal? If that is the case, is he not in precisely the position of Mr. Rudi Dutschke about five years ago when the position was very rightly criticised from our side of the House?

Mr. Rees: I had views about Rudi Dutschke, but I an, not sure that I can see the connection in this instance.
Under the law as I have to operate it, I have to take a decision based on the facts which is not a matter for the court. In the last three or four weeks I have considered how it should be dealt with. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that security is not a matter that can he bandied about in open court.
This is one of the problems here, because if there is a security aspect to this—my judgment is that there is a security aspect—words that are taken out of context can do harm not only to those involved but to many others whom I should protect.

Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) made her case cogently and asked a pertinent question of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—would he be prepared to see this gentleman personally?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has long experience. He knows that


that is not really a point of order. It is a question to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You decided that there should be one question more from each side of the House. Yesterday I tabled a Question concerning the other person involved in this case—Mr. Hosenball, a man well known to those in the Press Gallery and to me personally—and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter as important as this further questions be allowed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have announced my decision to the House.

Mr. Churchill: Is the Home Secretary aware that there will be no sympathy for those foreign guests of this country who seek to abuse our hospitality by meddling in security matters, especially those that concern Northern Ireland, and that there will be concern that individuals have been maintaining contact with Cuban and Soviet bloc intelligence services? Will the Home Secretary say whether, in his judgment, these actions have at any time placed in jeopardy the lives of servants of the Crown?

Mr. Swain: What about the Dardanelles?

Mr. Rees: I think that I should stick firmly on the basis that I have a responsibility for security. I have carried out my duty as I think best. There are means laid down by the House whereby people can put their case to independent members of a tribunal. I think I ought to leave it alone at that point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the original Question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just realised that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) who was told by me that it was not a point of order but a question to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Litterick: This House's rights have been violated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the It is a hon. Gentleman that he is not to argue with the Chair.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President of the Council to state the business of the House for the rest of the Session?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir.
The business on Monday 22nd November and, if necessary, Tuesday 23rd November will be consideration of Lords amendments.
If there is time on Monday, there will be a debate on regional policy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Lady. I do not know whether she wished me to make a further statement about tomorrow's business, but I gave some indication of that last week.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am not quite satisfied with that reply. I wonder whether the Leader of the House would reconsider having a debate on regional policy on Monday? It seems rather casual treatment of an important subject to have it "only if there is time". Could we not have the usual motion on the Adjournment upon which hon. Members may raise their own subjects?

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady makes that representation I shall certainly consider it and see whether, by discussion through the usual channels, an alternative subject might be selected for Monday. We are certainly not treating that subject as unimportant, and I am sure that we shall return to it in some other way in the new Session. But if the Opposition wish to have further discussion about a possible subject to be discussed on Monday, I shall be glad to discuss it through the usual channels.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Knowing the Lord President of the Council's great interest in questions of freedom and democracy, may I ask him, as a former editor of the Evening Standard, whether he is of the opinion that a debate is necessary to ascertain why Ministers are not prepared to take any action, knowing that there


are traitors to the country who are not being prosecuted—action which would have enabled them to answer either in open court or in camera, when they are having their liberties taken away? Will the Lord President allow time for a debate on the general issue of freedom of information, the right of the people to know and an opportunity for these people to be heard, either in camera or in open court?

Mr. Foot: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have underlined the importance of this subject. It would be an abandonment of our allegiance to proper liberal principles if the House did not show an interest in such questions. But my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already stated the situation in these cases and has informed the House of representations that can still be made. If the House at some later date wished to discuss the matter, it would be for the House to see how it could be raised. I suggest that the procedures which the Home Secretary has already outlined are those which were laid down by the House to deal with those questions and that we should use those procedures first.

Sir David Renton: What is the point of our having a debate on regional policy on Monday without the House having been presented with the Government's White Paper on the constitutional future of the English regions?

Mr. Foot: There are many aspects of regional policy which can be, and are, debated in the House constantly, irrespective of any proposals for devolution. Many questions have been discussed in meetings of the Regional Affairs Committee and I am sure that many hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, would find many questions to raise on regional matters. We thought it a convenient time to have that debate. But if Opposition Members and other hon. Members wish to have discussions about that subject, we are prepared to do so, but hon. Members on this side of the House will certainly wish to return to full debates on regional policy at an early date.

Mr. Peyton: There is some doubt how tomorrow's business will work out. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gen-

tleman will confirm that first we have six hours allotted to the Health Services Bill and that thereafter we deal with messages from the other place on the Education Bill? How long will they be expected to take?

Mr. Foot: It could be—it is certainly our understanding—that the first business tomorrow will be the discussion on the messages we receive from the other place on the Health Services Bill, and that will be for six hours under the timetable motion agreed by the House. If we receive any other messages from the other place on the Education Bill, they will be considered after that period, with the possibility of a three-hour debate. We hope that we shall not receive such messages and that the other place will accept the Education Bill.

Mr. Rose: In view of the curtailment of discussion on the important matter of the deportation by the Home Secretary of two persons, one of whom, Mr. Hosenball, is known to me, will my right hon. Friend provide time for the debate on the iniquitous procedure under the 1971 Act, whereby unspecified charges are brought by anonymous persons and the person accused has no way of knowing what the charges are or who is making those charges, and has no legal representation? Is my right hon. Friend aware, and will he convey to the Home Secretary, that many could vouch for the complete integrity of that journalist and would demand a debate on the Floor of the House in order to discover who has lied and given false information about him?

Mr. Foot: There was no question of any curtailment by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because the matter of how many questions are to be put in this House is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and you exercised your authority on that subject.
I have nothing to add to what I said before. What the Home Secretary described are the next procedures laid down and accepted by this House for dealing with these problems. If, after those procedures have been dealt with, the House wishes to discuss the matter, representations may be made for the House to consider whether it is desirable to discuss the subjects that have been raised by my hon. Friend and others.
I am not surprised, and I do not think that any Member of the House should be surprised, or indeed regretful, that the House wishes to consider these matters very carefully.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to invite hon. Members to prepare for a debate on the important subject of regional policy which he acknowledges might not take place? Would it not be better to allocate the time to unfinished Government business, namely, the Public Lending Right Bill?

Mr. Foot: We may deal with some unfinished Government business on Monday. We should be very happy if all the unfinished Government business could be concluded without our meeting on Monday, but I do not think that that is likely.
We proposed to have a debate on regional policy, and we thought that was a reasonable proposition, but if that is thought inadvisable in other parts of the House we are prepared to have discussions about it.
The Public Lending Right Bill is supported by the Government and by the official Opposition and, indeed, by the House of Lords. It is of importance to many people in the country, and it has certainly commanded the support of those in this House who have given real thought to the subject. It is a tragedy that such a Bill should be lost, but, in view of our experience on the measure, I do not believe that if we put it down for consideration on Monday, as is suggested, we could deal with it successfully then. When we come to the next Session, we shall have to consider how we can revive the Bill and ensure that it reaches the statute book.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fate of the Public Lending Right Bill reflects very gravely on the procedures of the House? The Bill was given a Second Reading without opposition. No one voted against it. It was debated for seven hours on Second Reading, for 21 hours in Committee and for nine hours on Report, yet we cannot find the time to get it through, even though we succeed in getting other more controversial legislation passed. Can some measures be taken to improve the procedures in these matters?

Mr. Foot: I repeat that I am as sorry as anyone—I hope that I may declare my interest—that the Public Lending Right Bill has not become an Act in this Parliament. Certainly it was the Government's desire it should be passed. However, it was prevented from reaching the statute book on this occasion because some hon. Members exercised their right, under our present procedures, to continue debates. One of the arrangements that we have in this House means that a few Members can, if they wish, seek to obstruct the passing of a measure. It is most deplorable that it should have been done in this case, but when we return to the subject, as I trust we shall in the next Session, the House will have to consider whether it wishes to proceed under the normal arrangements or to have a timetable motion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The responsibility for losing the Public Lending Right Bill rests principally on the Government for introducing it so late in the Session.
In view of the importance of any message that may come from the House of Lords on the Education Bill—I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no more knowledge than he has on whether a message will come—it will be most inconvenient to consider it late on a Friday after all the other business. If a message comes, the Bill should be taken on Monday.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that we have time to get the Education Bill through successfully. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to assist us in the matter, he might use his influence with the House of Lords to ensure that we get no message on the subject. That would be of great assistance and would ensure that the Bill went through. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us his assistance on the matter, particularly as he now tells us that he has no knowledge whether we are likely to have any message of that character.
The hon. Gentleman says that the responsibility for the failure of getting the Public Lending Right Bill on to the statute book rests with the Government. I do not accept that. The Government made a number of efforts to have the matter discussed and brought to a conclusion. Had we received the full-hearted support of the hon. Member for


Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on some occasions, we might have had a better chance of doing so.

Mr. Swain: In view of the apparent unholy alliance between the Conservative and Liberal Oppositions, having looked at the voting record of the Liberals over the past 12 months and bearing in mind their interest in regional affairs, as well as my own interest in the subject, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider bringing the House back on Sunday to discuss this important subject, with double time for hon. Members who attend?

Mr. Foot: If we made that proposition I am not sure that we should not get into trouble with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on public expenditure grounds.

Mr. Adley: Most people will be glad that national security decisions are in the hands of the Home Secretary rather than the Group of Ten, but is the Lord President nevertheless aware that the question of individual freedom raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is a serious and current topic, particularly in view of the deprivation of rights being experienced by many people especially in the nationalised industries over the imposition of the closed shop? Will the Lord President consider the request of his hon. Friend for an early debate on individual liberty?

Mr. Foot: This subject is discussed constantly in this House in reference to certain Bills and measures and that is the best way for it to be dealt with.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend note that the proceedings of the North-West Regional Affairs Committee yesterday terminated against the wishes of a substantial majority of Labour Members? Does he agree that if, in future, we are to have discussions of the affairs of a specific region, they should be of a longer duration than yesterday? Further, will my right hon. Friend agree to put down a motion on a specific subject affecting that region and ensure that a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for that subject is present to reply to the debate?

Mr. Foot: I know that there was a mishap in that Committee and that as a result the arrangements that the Government had sought to make to assist in getting the time for the discussion that we had hoped to provide did not prevail. I am sorry that that occurred, but it was not the Government's fault. Of course I think it is desirable that, where possible, Cabinet Ministers should be available at such debates, but it is not always possible. That must be taken into account, particularly when many meetings take place towards the end of a Session and it is not always possible to fulfil that obligation. That is why there are other Ministers fully capable of dealing with these questions.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early-Day Motion No. 109 dealing with the import of whale products?
[That this House is of opinion that the Government should impose a ban on the import of sperm whale products in this country and take all other practical steps to impose a moratorium on whaling for a period of 10 years as an essential conservation measure of great importance to mankind in general.]
The motion now has no fewer than 263 signatures. Previously, the Leader of the House indicated that he was sympathetic to the matter being discussed. It has not been discussed during this Session. May I have an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he will bring it forward early in the next Session?

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman raises the subject with me at the beginning of the next Session I shall do my best to see whether it is possible to discuss it.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend look at Early-Day Motion No. 682, which will be handed to him in a moment, and which relates to Consolidated Gold Fields whose directors are proposing to give an executive a golden handshake of £250,000?
[That this House deplores the decision of the directors of Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd. to give one of their executives a golden handshake of £250,000 as inconsistent with the policy of restraint.]
I realise that it may be difficult for my right hon. Friend to find time for the


motion, but will he at least say whether he approves of it?

Mr. Foot: I have had difficulty enough in arranging debates on these matters without making declarations on each one. I understand that discussions are taking place through the usual channels on the possibility of finding time for a debate, but no conclusion has been reached in respect of this Session. We shall have to start discussions again in the next Session.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call two further hon. Members, one from each side of the House. Mr. Hugh Jenkins.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he said about the Public Lending Right Bill and about the firmness of the Government's intentions in the matter will be widely welcomed? Will he take steps to see that on this occasion those intentions prevail?

Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. I entirely agree that it is deplorable that all the work done by so many hon. Members from all sides of the House to try to get the Bill through should have proved abortive. No one has worked harder than my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) to put the Bill on the statute book. I hope that we shall both live to see that happen.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Leader of the House clarify the position in respect of the regional debate on Monday? Will he confirm that English regional matters will be discussed and that the debate does not cover the affairs of Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Foot: That is so. But hon. Members representing Wales and Scotland can always join in if they wish.

Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the best way to ensure public lending rights in this country would be to create two new peerages in that "Chamber of Dilettantes" up the road—the Lord Stoat and the Lord Moate?

Mr. Farr: Is it not important that the House should, now and again, look

above the din of battle and possibly at an early date have what I would call a constitutional debate? Sensible proposals have been made not for reducing the power of the other place but for providing a second Chamber in a rejuvenated form. Would not a debate on those proposals at an early date in this House be opportune?

Mr. Foot: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not in favour of a second Chamber in a rejuvenated state. I am sufficiently opposed to it in its present decrepit state.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) asked me yesterday about the effect of the decision to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges upon any proceedings based on the same facts that might be instituted in the courts.
In her first intervention she asked whether there would be any offence to the traditions of courtesies of the House if individuals sought their own legal remedies while the Committee of Privileges was sitting. In answer to this I must say that there is no rule or practice of this House which inhibits hon. Members commencing actions in the courts in respect of publications of a non-parliamentary character, irrespective of whether the matter is under consideration here.
In her second intervention the right hon. Lady asked me, in effect, what view a court of law might take in regard to such an action. Under our constitution the courts of law have a jurisdiction quite independent of Parliament. I cannot therefore give a direct reply to her question; nor would it be proper for me to comment upon the practice of the courts. I can only answer upon the attitude which the House itself has always taken in regard to proceedings in the House. The House has always taken the view that no hon. Members can be compelled to give evidence in a court of law regarding proceedings in the House of Commons without the permission of the House, and the House has always upheld that right.
Furthermore, no documentary evidence of the proceedings of the House, which includes reports from Committees, may be produced in court without leave of the House.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I now have to rule on the complaint of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) yesterday. The hon. Member suggested that his complaint had something in common with that raised by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) on Tuesday. That may be his view, but I must emphasise that each complaint must be considered by the Chair separately and on its own. In reaching my decision, I have therefore considered the complaint of the hon. Member for Howden in complete isolation from that of the hon. Member for Paddington.
Though I have something to add at the end of my ruling, I shall come straight to the point. I rule that this is a matter on which the House should have the opportunity to express an opinion. I am therefore prepared to give precedence over the Orders of the Day to a motion concerning the complaint.
The 1967–68 Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege drew the attention of the House to the fact that the powers of the House in regard to privilege, and particularly in the matter of contempt of the House, were extremely wide in their scope and that, in its view, these powers should only be exercised extremely sparingly. It is not for me to comment on that Committee's opinion on the exercise of the powers of the House, since, as I reminded the House yesterday, the House has never come to a conclusion on the Committee's recommendation.
However, no one can deny that the circumstances in which it is open to the House to treat a complaint as a contempt are wide in their scope, and, as long as that remains the case, any Speaker must give a complaint which falls within that scope precedence over the Orders of the Day.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In view of your

ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall move a motion. I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
As I said yesterday, it has been the general custom—I do not say that it has always been the case—after a Speaker has ruled in the sense that you have just ruled that a motion of this character should be moved by the Leader of the House. That has been acceptable to the House on many occasions, and yesterday's debate and the decision reached by the House somewhat reinforce the idea that we should proceed along those lines today. I hope that the House can reach an early conclusion on this proposal.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sorry to delay the House and I know that many hon. Members will feel that, after the debate yesterday, it is unnecessary, but, having carefully read the document concerned, I consider that we should we wasting the time of the House and of the Committee of Privileges if this matter were taken to the Committee. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will vote against the motion.
As I have said, I have looked at the matter carefully. Any document which suggests that Mr. David Basnett and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) are dangerous and wicked Reds is so ludicrous that, frankly, it would be a waste of the Committee's time and energy even to consider such a document. Those hon. Members who feel that they have a right to take the matter further should do it through the courts on this occasion.
Yesterday the circumstances were rather different. I had not read the document yesterday. It is a pity that all hon. Members had not had the opportunity to see it. But now I have been able to read it, and it is so ludicrous and so silly that I hope the House just chucks it out and goes no further with it.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), which is why I voted against the motion yesterday. I think that the House is in danger of bringing itself and the Committee of Privileges into disrepute by referring to it at this time general matters of political dispute.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) and to say that I support him entirely.
Yesterday I listened to the debate and I felt thoroughly ashamed. I thought that the House did itself a great disservice, Which resulted in—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not vote?"] I abstained from voting and refused to support the motion because I did not believe that it deserved support, and today, when the motion is voted upon, I shall vote against it because we have now reached the ludicrous situation where an hon. Member says something outside the House which certain individuals do not like and immediately we rush before you, Mr. Speaker, and ask for it to be placed before the Committee of Privileges—as if hon. Members did not have enough to do without listening to some of the rubbish uttered by individuals outside.
If this had been the practice in the past, we could have brought many matters before the House. I have been accused of being employed by the Church of Rome, and I have had a number of letters to that effect, and it has been said that I am in almost daily communication with it. One can almost imagine the phone calls.
I am putting the matter in perspective because the suggestion is so daft, as are all the other rubbishy suggestions that have been made. But the House took it all seriously yesterday and evidently wants to do so again today. Allegations of that kind are absolute rubbish and nonsense, and they should not waste the time of the House.
When someone outside is alleged to have said certain things, a Member of Parliament should take the matter to court and prosecute. But for the House to go through the procedure of the Committee of Privileges and have its busy members meet to consider all that rubbish again is ridiculous.
Let us throw this out and show that the House will not tolerate this kind of nonsense. I warn those who support the motion that if this goes on others will take advantage and this House will be used for every possible kind of exploitation.

Mr. David Steel: When motions of this kind

are moved by the Leader of the House, there is a precedent for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion, having listened to the debate and taken the sense of the House.
I should like to support the hon. Members who have spoken so far. In your rulings both today and yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you referred to the report, still undebated, of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of 1968. I hope that, instead of pressing this motion, the Leader of the House will give us an assurance that in the new Session the report will be considered so that we may change our rule on privilege if we so decide.
Yesterday my right hon. and hon. Friends opposed the motion, and, if the Leader of the House wishes to press it, we shall oppose this motion today.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I do not think that it would be right if it were thought that the House was unanimous on this point. It seems to me that right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far are in grave danger of making fools of the House, because, whatever else, we must be consistent.
I fully understand that there were arguments on both sides yesterday, and some of us voted one way and some the other. But an overwhelming majority decided that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
That was decided only yesterday, and it was very much a congruent matter. The circumstances were the same, although I admit that there was the difference yesterday that it was a complaint against one of my hon. Friends, whereas today it is a complaint against an organisation within the Labour Party. But, apart from that, it is the same complaint.
There is a congruence of names—[Interruption.] I do not intend to be provoked in any way, Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know. You will recall that of the 10 names—

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make an obvious mis-statement by saying that the Social Democratic Alliance is an organisation of the Labour Party, which it is not?

Mr. Lawson: I am given to understand that all members of the Social Democratic Alliance are members of the Labour Party. I do not think that that can be gainsaid.
As I was saying, there is a congruence of names. As the House will recall, eight of the 10 names mentioned in his speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)—the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Barking (Miss Richardson) and the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—are included in the 33 we are discussing now. Only two of the remainder: the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—I understand why he raised that phoney point of order a moment ago—and Paddington (Mr. Latham) were left out of the "Autumn Double". Therefore, there is clearly a congruence.
The second reason I oppose right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far is that, despite some of the frivolity yesterday—I regret that as much as you, Mr. Speaker—I believe this to be an issue of considerable importance.
I should like to conclude by quoting two matters which will, perhaps, convince right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that that is so. The first is this statement:
There are attempts being made by a small group, a militant group, in a number of constituencies I should think probably 20 or 30 constituencies at the present time, and I hope that the National Executive Committee will take this matter in hand. It is not a large number yet. But it is since we raised the proscription a number of very odd people have come into the party, people who do not share the kind of democratic Socialist views that I hold".
That was a statement made by the Prime Minister on Panorama a few nights ago.
As I say, this is an important issue. It is not a question of whether Marxists eat their peas off a knife or whether the Tribune Group is an undercover wife-swapping agency. This is a serious matter.
The present Prime Minister is not the only Prime Minister who has believed the Marxist influence in the Labour Party to be a very serious matter. It was so

thought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister. Many of us will recall the great concern the Marxist influence in the Labour Party caused him at the time he was Prime Minister.
Many of us will recall, for example, the Conservative Party's election broadcast, under my right hon. Friend's leadership, of 19th February 1974, in which Mr. Bert Ramelson—he, of course, is the Communist Party's industrial organiser—was quoted as saying:
The party can float an idea early in the year and it can become official Labour Party policy by the autumn.
Mr. Barber, as he then was—he is now Lord Barber—said in the same broadcast—

Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman admit that Mr. Bert Ramelson was like Mandy Rice-Davies? He would, would he not?

Mr. Lawson: I must admit that I have heard that one before. It was almost as good the second time as the first time. However, I am merely quoting. I am not producing anything other than what was in this election broadcast.
The other quotation is from the noble lord, Lord Barber, who said in that broadcast, which my right hon. Friend had as part of his campaign, and rightly so:
But the second thing they had to do to succeed in their Communist aims—as they frankly stated—was to replace a Conservative Government with a Labour Government—a Labour Government that would be putty in their hands.

Mr. William Small: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How many copious notes is an hon. Member allowed to use? It used to be a matter for some comment if an hon. Member came to the House with over-copious notes. How far has the hon. Member slipped from that dignity?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have an overriding impression that both sides of the House are anxious to come to a decision.

Mr. Lawson: To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, on grounds of congruence with what happened yesterday, and on grounds of importance, as


attested to both by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup when he was Prime Minister, this matter should be referred by the Committee of Privileges.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The incoherent ramblings of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) will undoubtedly make it easy to emphasise my own clarity and coherence in contrast. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are enormous differences between yesterday's consideration and today's.
Yesterday's consideration related to a Member of this House who accused other hon. Members of having been elected by fraud. I would have thought that there could hardly be a more serious accusation. It is not a question of saying that certain Members are Left-wing or Right-wing or any such thing, but that Members perpetrated a fraud to be elected. That statement was made by a Member of this House concerning 10 named Members and other unnamed Members.
It seems that the House has to treat that in a serious fashion and was right to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. But today we are considering a matter which has been raised mischievously by a Member of the Opposition, relating to wild, hysterical statements by one or two members of my own party, apparently, who represent nothing, are of no importance within the Labour Party and who do not merit the attention of this House. Those who say that these are matters equivalent in kind show their own ignorance of the importance that should be placed on statements of Members of Parliament.
The hon. Member who was accused yesterday of bringing the House into disrepute by impugning the motives of other Members, the honourable—or at any rate the Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was a very clear implication in what the hon. Lady said, and she will understand that we refer to each other as honourable Members of this House.

Mrs. Wise: I shall refer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and I hope that he takes note of the need to behave accordingly.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has not only made wild imputations that other Members are elected by fraud but has descended to the politics of the gutter by poking his runny nose into everyone else's constituency, seeking to raise disruption and disunity amongst the population—[Interruption.]—Yes, Mr. Speaker, by playing off—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are not now discussing yesterday's motion. We are deciding whether the House in its wisdom wishes the matter on which I ruled today to go to the Committee of Privileges.

Mrs. Wise: I accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. It has been argued that the two matters are equivalent, and in trying to make a case that they are not equivalent it is necessary to refer to the points made earlier.
I am trying to make the case that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has been disruptive and causing division in the population by seeking to play off the unemployed and the sick against those fortunate enough to be employed.—[Interruption.] In doing that—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is too late. I am on a point of order. The hon. Lady must address herself to the question whether the motion should go to the Committee of Privileges. I am becoming increasingly aware that the House wishes to come to a conclusion on the matter.

Mr. Cormack: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The House divided: Ayes 243. Noes 230.

Division No. 419.]
AYES
[4.32 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Armstrong. Ernest
Bell, Ronald


Alison, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baker, Kenneth
Benyon, W.


Anderson, Donald
Banks, Robert
Berry, Hon Anthony


Archer, Peter
Bates, Alf
Biffen, John




Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon
Moyle, Roland


Body, Richard
Grist, Ian
Neave, Airey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Neubert, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith
O'Halloran, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Hardy, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs Salty


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harper, Joseph
Padley, Walter


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, Richard (workington)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Palmer, Arthur


Brotherton, Michael
Havers, Sir Michael
Park, George


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Parker, John


Brown, Huge D. (Provan)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Parkinson, Cecil


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hicks Robert
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Buchanan, Richard
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Buck, Antony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Prior Rt Hon James


Bulmer Esmond
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Burden, F. A.
Huckfield, Les
Raison, Timothy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rathbone, Tim


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hunt John (Bromley)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Campbell, Ian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael Neil
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cockcroft, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jessel, Toby
Royle, Sir Anthony


Concannon, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Sainsbury, Tim


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cope, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shepherd, Colin


Corbett, Robin
Jopling Michael
Silvester, Fred


Cordle, John H.




Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George



Kelley, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Corrie, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Spence, John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Lamont, Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Deakins, Eric
Lawson, Nigel
Stanley, John


Dempsey, James
Le Marchant, Spencer
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dormand, J. D.
Loveridge, John
Stoddart, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luard, Evan
Stradling Thomas, J.


Drayson, Burnaby
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCrindle, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tinn, James


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Tomlinson, John


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Eyre, Reginald
Mahon, Simon
Trotter, Neville


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mates, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Malher, Carol
Wakeham, John


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Maude, Angus
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Walters, Dennis


Ford, Ben
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Forrester, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wellbeloved, James


Fox, Marcus
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Whitlock, William


Fry, Peter
Mills, Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Galbraith, Hon T. Q. D.
Moate, Roger
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molyneaux, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ginsburg, David
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hon George


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Fergus



Gorst, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Joseph Ashton.


Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bidwell, Sydney


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bishop, E. S.


Atkinson, Norman
Bean, R. E.
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Awdry, Daniel
Beith, A. J.
Boardman, H.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)




Bradley, Tom
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Radice, Giles


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Brittan, Leon
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Richardson, Miss Joe


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Channon, Paul
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clemitson, Ivor
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rooker, J. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Coleman, Donald
Kilfedder, James
Rose, Paul B.


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Conlan, Bernard
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ryman, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kinnock, Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Cowans, Harry
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Selby, Harry


Crawford, Douglas
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Lamborn, Harry
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Cryer, Bob
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shersby, Michael


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Latham, Michael (Mellon)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Lee, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davles, Denzil (Llaneill)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sillars, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litterick, Tom
Sims, Roger


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Dunlop, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing. Nigel


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


English, Michael
McCusker, H.
Stott, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Macfarlane, Neil
Swain, Thomas


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGregor, John
Tapsell, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Farr, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fell, Anthony
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Thompson. George


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mayhew, Patrick
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish. Rt Hon Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkinson, John


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Watt, Hamish


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weetch, Ken


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David
Weitzman, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Nelson, Anthony
Welsh, Andrew


Grant, John (Islington C)
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Noble, Mike
White, James (Pollok)


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


Hannam, John
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ovenden, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hatton, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Parry, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie
Wise. Mrs Audrey


Henderson, Douglas
Penhaligon, David
Woodall, Alec


Hodgson, Robin
Perry, Ernest
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Holland, Philip
Phipps, Dr Colin



Hooley, Frank
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Cyril Smith and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. John Pardoe.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At what point in the proceedings will you require those hon. Members who are members of the Social Demo-

cratic Alliance, in whose name this document was presumably published, to withdraw from the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: That rule applies only to Members of this honourable House.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: There are not any.

Orders of the Day — DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments in lieu of Lords amendments disagreed to by the Commons, and a reason for disagreeing to a Commons amendment to a Lords amendment, considered.

Clause 4

SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREPARE NEW SCHEME

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 4, line 13, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof—

No. 1, in page 4, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (7) and insert
(3) Any premises as to which the Board has reported under section 6 of this Act that work done there is dock work for the purposes of the 1967 Scheme as it applies in any port, or is so treated by custom and practice, are to be treated as part of the definable dock area which includes that port, if not otherwise falling to be so treated under subsection (2A) above.
(4) The Secretary of State may, if it appears to him necessary in the light of local circumstances affecting any particular definable dock area, by order extend that area (or, having made in relation to it any one or more previous orders under this subsection, further extend it) by directing the addition to it of any contiguous area.
(5) An order shall not be made under subsection (4) in relation to a definable dock area unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(6) Schedule (Procedure before making of extension order under s. 4(4)) to this Act has effect as to the steps which are to be taken by the Secretary of State before making an order under subsection (4) of this section; and where an order under the subsection is laid before Parliament in draft for the purposes of subsection (5) there shall be laid with it—

(a) a statement by the Secretary of State certifying that Schedule (Procedure before making of extension order under s. 4(4)) has been complied with, and
(b) where a public inquiry has been held, a copy of any report and recommendation made by the person who held the inquiry."

No. 2, in page 24, line 22, at end insert new Schedule 1A—

Schedule 1A

PROCEDURE BEFORE MAKING EXTENSION ORDER UNDER S. 4(4)

1. Where the Secretary of State proposes to make an order extending or further extending a definable dock area, he shall refer the proposal to the Board and invite them to report to him with their opinion and advice on it.

2. He shall also publish the fact that he has referred the proposal, and the manner in which the area in question is proposed to be extended—

(a) in at least one national newspaper and at least one newspaper circulating in and around the area proposed to be extended, and
(b) without prejudice to section 15(2) of this Act, in such other ways as he thinks most appropriate for bringing the proposal to the notice of the persons likely to be affected by an implementation of it.

3. The Secretary of State shall allow at least 60 days for representations to be made to him (by the Board and others) with regard to the proposal, and shall consider any representations that are made.

4.—(1) For the purpose of determining whether to proceed with the proposal, the Secretary of State may cause a public inquiry to be held; and he shall cause such an inquiry to be held if it appears to him, from representations made by the Board and others, that there are objections to the proposal (other than objections appearing to him to be merely frivolous).

(2) Any such inquiry shall be held by a person appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons appearing to him to be impartial as respects the subject matter of the inquiry; and the person so appointed shall report his findings to the Secretary of State, together with such recommendations (if any) as he thinks it right to make.

(3) In relation to any inquiry held for the purposes of this paragraph, section 250(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (power to require witnesses' attendance etc.) apply as they do in relation to a local inquiry held under section 250(1) of that Act.

4.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I will deal first with Lords Amendment No. 1. I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may consider Lords Amendment No. 2 and the following Lords amendments:

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 5, line 30, to which the


Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 3, in page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) The work that may be classified is any which—

(a) is done or to be done at premises in a definable dock area and is within Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act and not within Part II of that Schedule; or
(b) whether or not falling within paragraph (a) above, is reported by the Board to the Secretary of State under section 6 below as having been dock work for the purposes of the 1967 Scheme or been so treated by custom and practice."

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 8, line 7, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 4, in page 8, line 3, leave out from "Scheme" to end of line 7 and insert—
(6) In this section 'port' means any one of the individual ports listed in Appendix I to the 1967 Scheme, together with any area.

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 8, line 16, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 5, in page 8, line 16, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
at premises situated in a definable dock area

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 10, line 32, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 6, in page 10, line 32, leave out
in the cargo-handling zone and
and insert
situated in a definable dock area and falling

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 12, line 28, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 7, in page 12, line 28, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
situated in a definable dock area

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 14, line 3, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 8, in page 14, line 3, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
situated in a definable dock area

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 17, to leave out lines 36 and 37, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 9, in page 17, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
'definable dock area' has the meaning given by section 4.

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 25, line 38, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 10, in page 25, line 39, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a definable dock area"

The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in line 3 of the Lords Amendment in page 26, line 18, for the following Reason—

No. 11, because Clause 4 of the Bill, as agreed by both Houses to be amended, does not relate to a cargo-handling zone but to definable dock areas.

The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 26, line 35, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—

No. 12, in page 26, line 35, leave out "outside the cargo-handling zone" and insert
not situated within a definable dock area

Mr. Booth: These amendments were put forward by the Government in another place and accepted without dissent by all sides in another place as being the only amendments to the Bill which should be reconsidered in the Commons. The amendments take full account of the decision which this House reached last week and seek to make an effective working measure of the Bill in light of the view of this House that the concept of a cargo-handling zone should be changed for that of a definable dock area.
The Government believe that the Bill, as amended in this House and assuming that these further amendments are agreed to, can still effectively serve the interests of the dock industry. The fact that the Lords rejected their earlier amendments to the Bill and accepted other Government amendments helped to emphasise the measure of understanding among all parties of the need for effective modern legislation in this area.
The Government amendments sought to substitute throughout the Bill the concept of a definable dock area for that of a cargo-handling zone. They would ensure that a new dock labour scheme would be applied to all work to which the 1967 scheme is now applied, whether or or not located in a definable dock area. They would provide that objections to a proposad to extend any definable dock area would be subject to a public inquiry and that any subsequent order for such an extension would be laid in draft before Parliament and would need to be approved by a resolution of each House.
If these amendments are passed, we believe that we shall have gone a very long way towards meeting the original objectives of the Government as set out in a statement made to the House by my predecessor on 15th July 1974. On that occasion he said:
Successive Parliaments have recognised that in the special circumstances of the docks there is a continuing need for control over employment arrangements. We must ensure that the coverage of that control is appropriate to modern conditions."—[Official Report, 15th July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 32.]
The Bill can play a positive part in achieving that end.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: The Secretary of State made a statement on Monday in which he set out the Government's view and the action which they proposed in the Lords. Their Lordships have now taken decisions, and today we have the agreed amendments back in this House.
I think that we should express our gratitude for the fact that we have a second Chamber and that, as a result of it, we have been able to make these changes. Although the Opposition think that the Bill should never have been brought before the House, it is now a considerably better Bill than it was when it first arrived.
On many occasions, Oppositions claim that Bills are better as a result of going through the House, but that is not always true. On this occasion, however, we can all honestly say that this is a very much better Bill than it was, and we are grateful for that.
We hope that the Act, as it will become, will result in a period of peace and stability in dockland and that the dockers

and the other unions and workers involved will settle down so that we can achieve what we need to achieve in dockland, which is the proper reduction of the labour force as it becomes necessary with new technologies and, at the same time, a speeding up of goods going through the docks. The fact that the cargo-handling zone and the five-mile corridor have been removed from the Bill will enable confidence to return to the area so that warehouses may be built and the industry can settle down.
The message which needs to go out from this House today is that we believe that the Bill as it is now will be a better one. We hope that it will lead to peace in dockland and that everyone can work together. The one factor that we all have to face at the moment is that we cannot afford to have unnecessary disputes at a time of economic crisis or at any other time. It is with that understanding, and the wish not to prolong proceedings this afternoon, that I hope we can come now to a rapid decision on these amendments.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I do not want to rupture the new-found harmony between the two Front Benches, but I must record the continuing disquiet felt by a large number of small ports up and down the country which are uncertain about their future.
Certainly the port of Mostyn in my constituency is in a state of great anxiety. At present it is not known whether the scheme will be extended to the port. I cannot satisfy this uncertainty. I urge the Minister to end the uncertainty at the first possible opportunity. In assessing the criteria for bringing small ports into the dock scheme area, will he bear in mind the vital importance of them to the hinterland which they serve?

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I, too, shall be brief. I think it is necessary, however, to make some comment on the situation which this Bill now presents for the docks industry. In spite of what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in very sweet tones about the future of the industry, the reality is that the amended Bill has been met with serious disappointment among trade unionists operating the ports of this country.
The decisions of this House and of the other place indicate the lack of understanding which exists on the problems in


the industry, and the Government's attempt to tackle them. Misunderstandings and distortions outside have led to a general feeling that this Bill is intended to do something quite different from what the Secretary of State said it would do in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
In my opinion, without the five-mile zone this Bill becomes less meaningful than it was in its original form. This fact will not be fully understood by those who do not know the history of the industry in the past 10 to 15 years. The Bill was an attempt, not for the first time, to recover a position in the docks whereby there was an adequate classification of dock work. Most disputes in the deck industry have stemmed from the lack of a clear definition of dock work and the lack of a clear classification. This Bill was intended to set out the arrangements to deal with such matters.
Those who hope for peace in the docks must look carefully at the decisions taken by Parliament to reduce the Bill to the meaningless state in which it is now. I hope that at the first opportunity the Government will take the necessary steps to bring back into the Bill the spirit and the intention of what it set out to achieve originally. No less than that will solve the problems of the industry.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I remind the House that Liberals have opposed the Bill from the beginning. Indeed, it was our motion on the Queen's Speech last year which objected to it originally, and our position has been consistent all the way through.
Having said that, I go along with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in saying that this is a better Bill than the one we had in Committee, even if it had to be brought about by abstentions on the Government side.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) in what he said about the five-mile corridor. I believe that the inclusion of such a corridor would have led to inter-union confrontation. I, too, hope for peace in the docks, but the five-mile corridor would not have assisted that.
I join with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in what he said

about uncertainty in small ports. I wish that the Minister had accepted the amendment on small ports because it was a very minor one. It would have taken out of the Bill the very small ports which I am sure it is not intended to include. This would have resolved the situation in places such as my constituency, where small ports are still in a state of uncertainty. I can tell them that I am sure that they will not be included, but nevertheless they have to go through the procedure laid down in the Bill, and that seems unnecessary and bureaucratic.
However, I welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of the position and the amendments which he has drafted to meet the decision of the House the other day. I hone that now there will be peace in the docks industry.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I echo the closing sentence of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in hoping that now there will be peace in the docks industry. But I must point out that this was the objective of the Bill originally.
There has been so much misunderstanding about the purposes of the Bill, and the nature of the changes made to it last week. This misunderstanding is still rife in London dockland because communications in the industry are appalling and as low as anything I have come across anywhere. In fact, we cannot congratulate ourselves on the communication about the Bill between the two Houses of Parliament. Continually during the last year, and particularly in the last week, the popular media have been talking about dockers having a monopoly on certain types of job.
I appeared on television where the introduction from the apparently neutral commentator was a travesty of the purposes of the Bill. People have not been told that all those working on their own account, inland waterways, navigation, and the petroleum industry, as well as airports, are specifically excluded from the Bill. That has not been made clear. Nor has it been made clear that in order to qualify for inclusion in the scheme a port must pass a 10-category test and three other tests. Perhaps this lack of understanding is due to the fact that the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, did not produce a White


Paper on the way in which the Bill would have worked in its original form.
I hope, therefore, that in this last debate on the Bill this Session we can at least agree across the Floor of the House that communications in public life and in the docks particularly are not good enough. Historically that has been one reason why things have gone wrong. In accepting these amendments, which still provide a very viable basis for extending the scheme, I hope that the Bill will provide a proper definition of what dock work is and what it is not.
5.0 p.m.
The Bill will take out of the hands of magistrates' courts the invidious task of deciding very technical matters and will put that properly in locally appointed boards. It will provide a basis upon which we can go forward. Certainly in London it will include all the work classified up to now. It will provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State, albeit after public inquiry and affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, to extend the scheme. Therefore, many of the rumours and misrepresentations that have been flying around in the last week are without basis.
The Bill will provide something of a basis whereby we can go forward. Contrary to the screaming headlines, such as "Bill in tatters", "Bill disembowelled" and so on, the structure of the Bill and the definitions and machinery that it provides are still there.
Therefore, I hope very much that even in its present state the Bill will provide a sound and workable basis for better understanding in dockland. But that means hard work. It means understanding by not only employees but employers. In passing the Bill in its present state, I hope that we shall have a basis for going forward, and not, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) indicated on Second Reading, the start of a dismantling of the present scheme. That was what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen said on Second Reading and what they indicated in Committee. I hope that they will at least agree that we have a reasonable basis from which we can all progress.

Mr. Graham Page: It is the power of the Secretary of State to extend this scheme about which I am most concerned. I represent a constituency that contains a very large dock area. There was great consternation there about the five-mile limit. There is some satisfaction about the reduction of that limit, but it is also noticed that the Secretary of State has the power to extend it back again. Therefore, one is apt to look at that power of extension very closely.
I do not know whether I have an early print of the Lords amendments, but there must surely be a misprint in subsection (5) of Lords Amendment No. 1. The previous subsection says,
The Secretary of State may—by order extend that area".
Then subsection (5) says,
An order shall not be made under subsection (4) in relation to a definable dock area unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament
—it is all right as far as that—
and approved by a resolution of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to that matter. The subsection should read "each House" instead of "the House".

Mr. Page: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have not held up the House unnecessarily. How ever, if we may now understand this to be in the proper form, I am very grateful.

Mr. Booth: Perhaps I may try to sus-stain the atmosphere of agreement between the two Front Benches for as long as possible. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that the Bill is a better one for having gone through this House. My reasons for coming to that view may be slightly different from the right hon. Gentleman's reasons. I have in mind particularly the amendments made in Committee to make clear beyond peradventure that anyone whose work was classified as dock work would have complete statutory protection. These were very useful improvements to the Bill.
I speak with some trepidation on the subject of small ports particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and that made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight


(Mr. Ross), because small ports, as such, are not specifically covered by these amendments. However, I think that some of the remarks made reflected a misunderstanding of the debate of last week, because the option before the House was not one of agreeing with the Bill provided that the tests that are now in the Bill for the small ports permanently define small ports for all time. The alternative before the House was a formula for small ports, with a power to amend the formula. Therefore, there was a flexibility in the alternative that the House considered and rejected. The method that remains in the Bill for determining whether small ports should be brought within the scheme is one that lends itself to modern dock working conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Garston (Mr. Loyden) has said that without the five-mile limit the Bill is less meaningful. I shall not comment on that in a way that suggests agreement or disagreement with the decision taken by the House last week on the issue. That is a decision of the House which I am doing my best to implement very fully.
However, I think I am entitled, as it is a matter that is subject to the present amendments, to say that under the amendments now before us there is scope for moving from the definable dock area by extension, as there was in the alternative considered by the House.
The power of extension in the amendment now before us makes the power to extend subject, first, to public inquiry if there is objection to the proposed draft extension. It also limits the power in such a way as it may be applied to only one definable dock area at a time, and it retains the proposition that has been in the Bill from the very outset that the extension shall take place only where the proposition was affirmed by both Houses of Parliament.
Therefore, while there is a change in the concept, there is no change in the basic proposition—that whatever geographical area we take within the Bill, under modern dock work conditions and with the changes that are taking place in the industry, a power to extend by examination of the situation on the

ground is a desirable feature. This has been retained in the Bill.

Sir. A. Meyer: I fully accept that the Lords amendment which the House rejected would not have given any greater certainty to the small ports as to their future than they have under the present situation. However, will the right hon. Gentleman respond to my earlier appeal and say that he will give the earliest possible indication, if not of those ports which are to be included and those which are to be excluded, at the very least of the criteria that he will adopt in assessing which ports are to come in and which are not?

Mr. Booth: I seek to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman by saying, first, that the Bill in the form in which we proposed it to the House placed. in so far as we are considering the work now done by small ports, a limit on the amount of time in which there would be uncertainty, and there is a time limit attached to the requirement placed upon the Board both to review what is now the dock work and to consider the activities of loading and unloading operations. It would be only to the extent that a port changed its practices or increased or diminshed in its trade at some time in the future, that the question of any uncertainty—to use the hon. Gentleman's word—would again arise, and there would be a further survey.
I think that the Bill is constructed in a way that helps by putting in a time limit. Obviously, while we may have disagreements about how long should be allowed, we can agree that the Bill limits the time. The initial survey must take place within the limitations imposed by the Bill.
There is one other feature of the Bill that provides a partial answer to the question posed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston when he questioned how useful the Bill is without the five-mile limit within it. As a result of the decision of the House, we have changed "cargo-handling zone" to "definable dock area", but that is not in every case a limitation of the area which comes under the survey of the Board. In some cases that change means that areas are open to survey which were


not open to survey under the concept of a cargo-handling zone.
For example, the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Dunnett), Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) are now within a definable dock area but were not covered by "cargo-handling zone". The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) has just been brought within a definable dock area. It previously fell some half a mile short of his constituency, which is now brought in by "definable dock area". The constituency of Worcester has been brought in by this change, as has Leeds, which is represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) and York (Mr. Lyon) are now within a definable dock area. That is the decision of the House to which I have responded, I hope properly.
But I must make it clear that the definable dock area is not so precise a geographical concept and is open to be surveyed in the way that the House, I take it, intended it to be surveyed, so that we can not only produce orders to set out the new dock areas or dock areas under the new scheme but also produce suitable classification orders to follow.

Mr. Spearing: This point is important in view of what I have said about understanding. Will the order to which the amendment refers and by which my right hon. Friend can extend the definable dock area be pre- or post-survey? If it is the latter, has he the powers to conduct the survey before that order is made? If it is pre-survey, does that mean that premises can be examined in the way in which the original Bill intended?

Mr. Booth: The initial survey of the area can take place prior to the order making the definable dock area. Classification can take place after that. That is to say, an initial classification is not a classification for all time. If dock work is started in new premises, that can be subject to survey and under the procedures of the Bill subsequently to classification. So classification can take place before and after survey. The most com-

mon form which will be practised will be to bring at least two orders in respect of each area—one to state that there is a definable dock area and the second to say what is classified work within the area. But subsequent classification can take place. One effect of the amendments is that existing dock work under the present scheme can remain and will remain dock work under the new scheme even if it is outside the definable dock area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that there has been wide misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Bill. I hope that we can do much to deal with that problem now, but I have to point out the limitations which were on my hon. Friends and me as Ministers in dealing with this issue. We brought forward a consultative document rather than a White Paper. I do not apologise for that. For an issue such as this, it was most important that there should be consultation.
However, having done that, the Government cannot spend funds publicising a Bill. The Government cannot use public funds to combat propaganda. What we can do when the Bill is enacted. and what I hope we shall be able to do, is spend public funds on publicising the measure in the form in which Parliament has decided that it wants it enacted. I hope that in doing that we shall remove some of the misrepresentations and misunderstandings and make a contribution to ensuring what I hope the whole House wants—that the Bill will work smoothly and make for better working in the docks industry.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: As I have made clear from Second Reading onwards, I do not like this Bill. However, this is not the occasion for a Third Reading review of whether we like it or not, except to say that it is clear that every hon. Member on this side and many Labour Members do not like the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that we would all agree that it is a better Bill than it started. That at least is to Parliament's credit.
I emphasise what has been said by my non. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) about small ports. There is still concern about what


will happen both to the small ports which are scheme ports and to those which are not. Clearly, uncertainty can lead to difficulties for the future. Therefore, I underline the request which has been made that we should remove as much uncertainty as fast as possible.
This is the last time that we shall deal with this Bill in this Session and one hopes that it will achieve the objective of improving conditions in the docks industry. I hope that the fears which we have expressed about some features of the Bill will not come to pass. However, even though it has been amended, it would have been much better if we had cut its throat at the start.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.

Schedule 3

DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY, AND THOSE WHICH MAY NOT, BE CLASSI FIED AS DOCK WORK

Lords amendment: in page 26, line 18, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
11. Driving any vehicle whose use is mainly on public roads, whether inside or outside any definable dock area; supervision of loading and unloading such a vehicle; seeing to the security of its load.

The Commons agree to this amendment but propose the following amendment thereto:

Line 3, leave out ("any definable dock area") and insert ("the cargo-handling zone").

Lords Reason for disagreeing to the Commons amendment in line 3 of the Lords amendment in page 26, line 18—
Because Clause 4 of the Bill, as agreed by both Houses to be amended, does not relate to a cargo-handling zone but to definable dock areas.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move,
That this House doth not insist on its amendment in line 3 of the Lords amendment in page 26, line 18, to which the Lords have disagreed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 12 agreed to.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments in lieu of certain Lords amendments disagreed to by the Commons and a Reason for insisting on certain amendments disagreed to by the Commons, considered.

Clause 30

DISSIPATION OF ASSETS BY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING HOLDERS OF SECURITIES ETC.

The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 42, line 12, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

Lords amendment in lieu: No. 1, in page 42, line 12, after "if" insert—
(a) it is a transaction the effect of which is to transfer or grant to any person any property or rights belonging to the company effecting the transfer, being property or rights used by the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships carried on by it at a place which is not a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in the possession on the initial date, or
(b)

5.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment in lieu.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Meyer Galpern): We are to discuss at the same time Lords amendments in lieu Nos. 2 to 4, together with the Government motion,
That this House doth insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendments,
and the following Government amendments in lieu thereof:
No. 2, in page 21, line 40, leave out "Part I" and insert "paragraph 1, 3 or 4".
No. 3, in page 21, line 41, leave out "fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule" and insert—
(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and
(b) fulfilled the conditions specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being for the purposes of that


paragraph shipbuilding companies, manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines or training companies,".
No. 4, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the shiprepairing industry vesting date all securities of the companies which on that date were known by the names specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act, being the companies other than any excepted company which on that date—

(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and
(b) fulfilled the condition specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of that paragraph

shall, by virtue of this section, vest in British Shipbuilders free from all trusts and incumbrances".
No. 5, in page 77, line 15, after "Shipbuilders", insert—
by virtue of section 19(2) of this Act".
No. 6, in page 77, line 16, at end insert "and
(c) in relation to a company which becomes, or would but for the provisions of section 27 of this Act become, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Shipbuilders by virtue of section 19(2A) of this Act, the ship-repairing industry vesting date;".
No. 7, in page 77, line 34, at end insert—
'shiprepairing industry vesting date' means such date not less than 3 nor more than 6 months after the passing of this Act as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify for the purposes of section 19(2A) of this Act;".
No. 8, in page 80, line 44, at beginning insert—
1. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being shipbuilding companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
No. 9, in page 81, line 18, at end insert—
2. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2A) above as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
No. 10, in page 81, line 31, at end insert—
3. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".
No. 11, in page 82, line 1, at end insert—
4. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above, as being training companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".

Mr. Varley: I want to make it clear at the outset that it is the firm policy of the Government that the nine privately-owned and three publicly-owned ship repair companies named in Schedule 2 should vest in British Shipbuilders. The reports in the Daily Express and the Financial Times that the Government have offered a deal to exclude some of these companies are completely without foundation. No such deal has been offered and no such deal will be offered.
The Government have a clear mandate for these proposals. In our manifestos in both February and October 1974, we said clearly:
We shall also take shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering—into public ownership.
It is clear that there is a firm commitment specifically to ship repairing in both manifestos. This afternoon a representative of Plaid Cymru suggested that that commitment was not contained in our manifesto. I am sorry that no member of the party is here to listen to that quotation.
That commitment is as firm as our commitments to bring aircraft, shipbuilding and marine engineering into public ownership. All were published at the same time in the manifestos—not some in bolder and some in lighter type—and it is not for the House of Lords to pick and choose among the manifesto commitments which it deigns to permit us to implement.
The amendments to the Lords amendments which I am moving today reaffirm our commitment to nationalise ship repairing and set out the time scale for vesting—no later than six months after Royal Assent, and earlier than that if this can sensibly be achieved.
Ship repair was included in our proposals for public ownership for strong and powerful reasons. These are as follows. The ship repair industry is fragmented and has a rapidly declining work force. The level of capital investment in the industry has been nothing short of disastrous. There is an urgent need for injections of capital to bring about a rapid modernisation of ship repair yards. Under the present fragmented private ownership, the ability to plan investment effectively and to manage efficient modern yards is severely limited.
These conclusions were confirmed and echoed almost identically by a report on the United Kingdom ship repair industry commissioned by the Conservative Government from PA Management Consultants and published in June 1974. The report was rather vague about remedial measures—except to make clear that the investment which it considered necessary for the industry would not be forthcoming from the private sector, and to advise individual ship repairers to take the initiative to make applications for Government aid.
The PA report showed that the ship repairing industry in this country had consistently declined over the last decade, during which employment in ship repairing had halved. It suggested that the major firms on the main estuaries should be encouraged and it identified a number of major obstacles to growth. They included outdated facilities of many ship repairers which do not compare with those of their rivals on the Continent and which will become even more unsatisfactory in the longer term. It also identified unsatisfactory labour relations and the impact of this upon international competitiveness.
Therefore, the case in general terms for nationalising ship repairing is that the improvements badly needed in investment, productivity and industrial relations are unlikely to cone about otherwise. Under private ownership it has been an industry generally noted for outdated, run-down facilities and poor working conditions. In competitive world conditions, the industry must now pursue an active marketing policy at home and abroad. It can best do this under the umbrella of British Shipbuilders.
Our ship repairing proposals are part of a clear industrial strategy for this sector. But another reason for bringing ship repairing into the Bill is the strong link with shipbuilding. Many shipbuilding firms in the Bill also carry out considerable ship repair work. Examples are Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, Hall Russell, Rob Caledon, Smith's Dock, Vosper Thornycroft and Goole Shipbuilding and Repairing Company. In most of these cases it would be impossible to split the two activities; in many cases

there is interchange of labour and common facilities are used.
Shipbuilding groups like Swan Hunter and Scott Lithgow have separate ship repairing subsidiaries. There also, shipbuilding and ship repairing complement each other to a great extent. When these matters were last discussed in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who has worked in both the ship repairing and shipbuilding industries, made a powerful case.
The ship repair docks may be used by the shipbuilders at certain stages in the construction of ships. Some jobs—for example, conversions or refits—may call for the use of both shipbuilding and ship-repairing facilities. The same types of skill are needed in the labour force. Unless ship repairing companies in these groups come into British Shipbuilders, there will be loss of flexibility and inefficient use of resources. The ship repair companies named in the Bill were included for good industrial reasons.
The analogy which has often been made, and which was made in a radio broadcast, a few day ago, comparing the difference between ship repair and shipbuilding companies with the difference between car manufacturers and garages is, therefore, entirely fallacious, inaccurate and inappropriate as far as companies named in the Bill are concerned.

Mr. Tom King: Who made that analogy?

Mr. Varley: It was said by a Mr. Bayliss whom I believe to be the secretary of the SRNA, who spoke on the radio a few nights ago.
I have made it clear that our commitment to nationalise ship repair is firm and long-standing and has sound industrial logic behind it. This commitment has been upheld in this House since the Second Reading debate nearly a year ago, and not once in all the 58 sittings of the Committee stage, in the three days of Report and Third Reading or in the first Commons consideration of Lords amendments was a single Division carried against inclusion of ship repair in the Bill.
On Tuesday the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) congratulated the Government on accepting what he called the "clear will" of the House on the


Dock Work Regulation Bill. It has throughout been the clear will of the House that ship repair be brought into public ownership. It seems that the Opposition proclaim the clear will of this House when it suits them but reject decisions of this House when they do not suit the Tory Party. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right when he spoke of a conspiracy between the Opposition Front Bench and the Tory peers.
It is impossible for the Government to agree to the Lords proposal that ship repair should be dropped. The Government have a duty to carry out the policy in their election manifesto, particularly when this has repeatedly been endorsed by the House.
If the Lords maintain their present stance, the blame for delay in enacting the Bill will lie squarely on their shoulders. The consequences of delay for both shipbuilding and aerospace industries have been spelt out many times. My noble Friend Lord Melchett described them in another place on Monday as catastrophic. He was not exaggerating. Not least to suffer from the delay, will be some of the very private ship repair companies which the Lords are misguidedly fighting to remove from the Bill. Indeed, information reaching my Department indicates that a number of the nine private ship repair companies in the list are anxious that the Bill should go ahead as passed by this House.
There is, of course, one notable exception which has consistently opposed the Bill by means of an extremely expensive and highly misleading publicity campaign. Some of this might have misled some Members in another place into taking a mistaken view of the industry and misunderstanding the logic of our proposals.
One Member of another place on Monday who admitted that he knew nothing about the industry was impelled to contribute to the debate by reading a letter he had received from a worker shareholder of the firm thanking him for voting to remove ship repair. I, too, have had a letter from a worker in this company, backed up by the signatures of 76 per cent. of his fellow workers, both skilled and unskilled. The letter is from a shop steward in Bristol Channel Ship

Repairers and I have his permission to read it.
The letter is as follows:
We the undersigned are employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, Swansea, and wish to make it known that we fully support the Bill to nationalise the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries which includes this company. Also we would welcome an opportunity to meet any representatives of the Organising Committee.
The letter is signed by 76 per cent. of the work force in Swansea drydock.

Sir Raymond Gower: Perhaps the Secretary of State is not aware that this company operates in four of the South Wales Docks—Cardiff, Newport, Barry and Swansea. I have met numerous employees of the company, and the vast majority of them are strongly in favour of the company's action in seeking to be outside the ambit of the Bill.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Varley: I have just read out a letter representing 76 per cent. of those who work in the Swansea dry dock. There is other evidence, not only from Swansea but from Cardiff, of representatives of workers at Bristol Channel Ship Repairers saying that they want to be included.
The Government have a clear mandate to insist on the enactment of the ship repair proposals. The great majority of those who work in the ship repair companies named in the Bill want the proposals to go ahead. The Tory peers, responsible to no one and elected by no one, take it upon themselves to decide which election commitments the elected Government should be permitted to fulfil and which they should be prevented from fulfilling. They never once did that when the Tories were in power.
The Tory peers are as selective in their interpretation of their role as they are about the legislation they will pass. I hope—and I say this on behalf of the Government—that they will think carefully about the consequences for the many thousands who depend for their livelihood on the shipbuilding, ship repairing and aircraft industries if they delay the Bill by insisting on disagreeing with this House. The responsibility for those consequences will be theirs and theirs alone.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The House will be a little disappointed that the Secretary of State should have repeated the delusions which dogged his Minister of State and Under-Secretaries throughout the consideration of the Bill. Everybody working in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries is aware that both have a real difficulty in their forward work loading. That is not in dispute. But none of the people working in them is so naive as to believe that handing over £400 million to £500 million to shareholders who, by and large, have no wish to go will do anything to improve the work loading.
Therefore, it is regrettable that the Secretary of State should have suggested that in some way nationalisation creates jobs. It is particularly regrettable on the day when the National Economic Development Organisation has produced a report, an independent report but nevertheless one heavily influenced by its role in government, which clearly shows trade unionists, management, civil servants and politicians that nationalisation has been a political disaster. In industry after industry, everybody who has been consulted by NEDO has panned the concept from start to finish, because it has not been able in any way to live up to the expectations that led the Labour Party to introduce nationalisation.
Now we have yet another attempt by the Government to reach a compromise with their Left wing over that section of the British industrial scene that must be handed over to the State to buy a further period of unity for the party in government. It is extraordinary that in the course of this week we can hear the ringing tones of the Prime Minister talking about the need to rally the nation behind the mixed economy and make it work, as he sets off hot-foot back to the House to try to design the strategy with which to nationalise yet one more industry.
The only standard by which this Government are judged now is that of the facts, which stare us in the face. Nobody listens to the words, to the arguments and speeches, because there is a quotation to support every concept that suits Ministers in every posture that they adopt. There is somebody representing every view, from the extreme moderate view to

the extreme Left-wing view, within the Cabinet, so every argument is well rehearsed, depending entirely on the circumstance in which it is paraded. In industrial terms, it all adds up to humbug, because it contributes nothing towards job creation, nothing towards the prosperity of British industry and investment in it. All that it adds up to is the creation of additional requirements for Government borrowing to compensate shareholders who, broadly, have no wish to have occasion to be compensated.
It is curious that the Secretary of State, who is regarded as a man with a certain concern for the well-being of British industry, should now come with a speech, doubtless polished up this morning in Cabinet, to try to present a case for moving forward in public ownership. He quotes the Labour Party manifesto. Doubtless he will soon quote the resolutions of the Blackpool conference.
There is a whole string of industries now facing nationalisation, in whole or in part, by the Labour Party. Some of them are listed in the manifesto—the pharmaceutical, construction and transport industries. Others are now in the process of being debated within the Labour movement or have been accepted by the policy councils of the movement. In their judgment the process is irreversible.
The Secretary of State says that the proposals have been carefully worked out, that there are ideas which are to be implemented. But all of us who sat through the 58 Committee sittings know that there are no such proposals. In no industry that has been nationalised have there been any factual, concrete proposals. It is one of the major problems facing nationalised industries that the theories are generalised and the practical proposals are never designed until the crisis hits the industry after nationalisation. We have never had a debate about where rationalisation will take place, or how, or, perhaps more important, where the work will come from to preserve the jobs after nationalisation.
Our whole submission was that if the Government had spent the past two and a half years worrying about how the workload and efficiency of the industries was to be improved, to compete for what limited amount of work was available,


there would be a much better prospect of job security for those two industries today. The Government have no ideas themselves. They appointed an organising committee to which they could give no instructions. The Government wasted those two and a half years. They did not put forward sensible or coherent policies for anyone in the industries to consider in detail, except within the privacy of the organising committee.
The other place has powers given to it by the Labour Party in 1949. Presumably their Lordships were given those powers so that they might judge whether they wished to use them. If the Labour Party does not believe that there should be a two-Chamber system of government, it is up to the party to put forward that argument. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept that there is a case for reform of the second Chamber, but what is not arguable is the Secretary of State's case that the other place is not supposed to use the powers it has been given.
Rather than putting forward this totally incomprehensible amendment to prolong the agony for another two or three days, the Government would have done better to face up to the fact that their Lordships have decided to represent the overwhelming wishes of the body of the people by deleting ship repairing from the nationalisation proposals.
I have no doubt that the House, having heard the arguments about the ship repair industry many times, will wish to proceed to an early Division. I recommend my colleagues to support their Lordships.

Mr. William Small: I thought that by now there had been a thaw between us and another place, but their Lordships always wear the mask to look in the mirror, and, like the reflection in the mirror, we have the Tory Party in the House of Lords defying the House of Commons. To that degree and to that degree alone, I have sympathy with the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
We in Britain have a problem of loss of face, which the Japanese know about in their religion called Shinto. This applies to the place of British shipbuilding in the world. We need to go for a total package, including ship repairing.
If I met a lord to discuss the old question of hybridity, I would ask him down to the Lords' Bar. I would say "Let us have a Cutty Sark". He would look at the label and see the ship that was called the Cutty Sark. In referring to "Cutty Sark" there is that element of hybridity. This often arises in the use of English. For example, in one poem Burns uses the words "woman's chemise"—namely, a wanton witch. There are all these interpretations, difficulties and possible hybridity in the use of English. To say that ship repairing is not part of the shipbuilding package astounds me. To that degree, I hope that my right hon. Friend has some success.
A constituent of mine is taking part in the Miss World contest. I hope that she wins.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is not necessary to hold any brief for the other place to agree with this hatch of amendments about ship repairing. It stands out a mile that if the other place had really wished to earn its money it would have tackled the legislative monstrosities of the previous Conservative Administration with the same exactitude that it has applied during the past few weeks. I have in mind the shambles of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Industrial Relations Act, two pieces of legislation that were inflicted upon a long-suffering country, uncorrected.
To contest the claims of the other place, as I do, does not mean that one must deny everything that comes from it. Even the dimmest pupil in the class occasionally gets the sum right, but that is not a case for changing the principles of mathematics. When that happens the teacher graciously acknowledges that at last "Robert has a sum right". That is what has happened here. The other place has had one or two flashes of inspiration. They have come not entirely from the Tory peers.
It is not for us to question how they have suddenly come upon this accession to wisdom. It is not simply a matter of their doggedly resisting everything labelled nationalisation. If that had been the case, the Liberal peers would not have supported the amendments. As I hope the House knows, Liberals are


not dogmatic on these issues. The mischief is that in this case much new ground has been covered without any real mandate. Is it seriously maintained that the people of Chesterfield, Nuneaton, Keighley and those in part of Greater Manchester, for example, really believed, when they went to the polls on two occasions in 1974, that they were voting not only for the tremendously important principle of nationalisation in terms of ship repairing, but for the new principle of nationalising a service industry that is carried on in small units? If they had been enabled to realise that, they would have noticed that a serious precedent was being set which threatens every sort of service industry in the country.
For the most part, the British people were not aware that such a course was to be taken. At this stage it seems completely irresponsible for the Government to contest the amendments and to move that we disagree with them. In so doing they are endangering the whole of the Bill.
We did not have to be in the slightest sense parliamentary legal experts to know that the Bill was irresponsibly drafted and bristling with hybridity. All honour must go to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who, with his expert botanical knowledge, discovered the best hybrid of all blooming away in some remote Scottish area. But even those of us who do not have his expert knowledge were aware that when a Bill of this sort is drafted, when it is impudently supposed that the principle of nationalisation can be applied to manufacturing and servicing industries of great complexity in the same measure, we are bound to create not one instance of hybridity but dozens.
It was common knowledge, even if the majority of Members do not have the same talent for spotting such strange things going on in other parts of the country as does the hon. Member for Tiverton, that various examples of hybridity could be produced. To send the amendments back to another place is to run the risk of provoking it into sending the Bill to the Examiner, in which case these failing industries—we have been told so often from the Treasury Bench how many thousands of redundancies the Government will have to declare as soon

as they become responsible—may well face even worse trouble. Not only is it irresponsible to take that course; it is unrealistic.
5.45 p.m.
It seems that the Government do not realise that they are dealing with an industry that has become highly mobile between one country and another. Gone are the days—at any rate, they are going—when ship repairing had to be carried on in fixed abodes, in docks which, once established, are maintained until they wear out. We have seen in operation the large floating dry dock that can be moved from country to country. Indeed, one example is about to be moved from one continent to another. There will be nothing to prevent the floating dock that was proposed for Port Talbot in more rational times, which is expected to generate one thousand jobs, being floated across the Atlantic, to a French port, a Dutch port or, if necessary, to a German port.
The Government do not seem to realise that they are dealing with an industry that is not entirely a captive. It is not an industry that has to submit to what is done in his House. Thank goodness, like so many of our citizens, part of it can sling its hook and vote with its feet, or propellor, when it decides that conditions have been made intolerable. To insist on this last scintilla of the Bill when the rest of the prize is at last within the Government's grasp, after all the mistakes that have been made in the past, is irresponsible and unwise.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I was appalled by the cynicism of the Secretary of State's remarks when he said that if he cannot have ship repairing the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry must wait, however long it is that they will be required to wait, and that whatever may happen to them in the meantime is no concern of his but is somehow the concern of another place. I find that amazing.
The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any of us that three industries have been incorporated within one Bill for the first time in the history of the House and that one day was given for Second Reading. By anyone's standards they are not industries that are compatible. They do not belong together in one Bill. The three industries were put


together in the one measure to ease the passage of legislation, and that passage has not been eased by the incompetence of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman would have been far better advised to take each industry separately and examine it separately before deciding whether it belonged in the same Bill or whether, in reality, it would be better handled individually.
If there is to be a catastrophe ahead for our airframe and shipbuilding industries because the other place is refusing to accept the nationalisation of shiprepairing, I say that the responsibility rests firmly and completely upon the head of this Government and the head of this Secretary of State.
The employment of hundreds and thousands of persons depends upon what we decide and how much emphasis we place upon what the two Chambers say. The Government can have the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry in a Bill to nationalise them both, and they can have it before 24th November.
We are told by the Secretary of State that he has a magical thing called a mandate from the nation which requires him to carry out, to the last jot and tittle, his duty to nationalise the aircraft, shipbuilding, and ship repairing industries. The right hon. Gentleman claims a mandate from the nation, but let us examine that mandate. It was a promise made to the nation in a Labour Party document on which the right hon. Gentleman supposed the electorate voted in October 1974. Is he unaware that in a Labour Party document not so long ago he was also to include Harland and Wolff within the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry? That never happened. Does he not have a mandate to incorporate that company within these other nationalised companies? Apparently he has no such mandate, because the mandate he has is that which he wishes to have rather than something that he has been given.
If he were as sensitive to what people really want, he would not deny himself the reality of the two by-election results which clearly showed that the electors in two important Labour constituencies turned their backs on the mandate that he was supposed to have achieved in October 1974. But to recognise that fact flies in the face of what the Government

intend to do. It is that intention, and not this supposed mandate, which governs the Government's actions tonight.
I return to the question of Harland and Wolff—not because I wish to divert this debate in any way but simply to underline the nonsensical situation now created in the United Kingdom in which, if the Bill is enacted, we shall have two nationalised shipbuilding industries and two nationalised airframe industries. How can that situation be justified? If it cannot be justified, it is much more difficult to seek to justify the case that ship repairing—an international business—should be included in the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, when a Northern Irish shipbuilding company, which belongs 100 per cent. to the Government, is not to be included in British Shipbuilders.
I suggest that the concept involving the national interest and a national mandate is not uppermost in the Government's mind. What is uppermost in their minds is their determination to succeed and a dogmatic intention to nationalise three industries, regardless of the consideration whether it is good for the workers of Britain and for British trade.
I turn to a question which the Secretary of State must answer before lie asks anybody to reject these amendments from the other places; what sort of control is he looking for in regard to the shipbuilding yards? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that there are many of these ship repair yards. He will know that their business is international and that, because of that factor, they are in a different category from shipbuilding, which is essentially of a national character. The hon. Gentleman also will know that those who bring their ships to be repaired are concerned about time, price, delivery, and the geographical position of the yard to which they take their ships for repair. Is it being said that those yards will have the flexibility that they now possess?
Will the Minister comment on what was said by Sir Anthony Griffin in The Times on 19th July this year:
It was not the intention that the industry"—
he was referring to British Shipbuilders—
should be run by a 'faceless, far-off, monolithic corporation', but rather that the new body should create an environment under


which the individual yards could utilise their resources to the full. The work being undertaken by the Organising Committee was based on international as well as national and industrial considerations. Policies derived from each of these would be combined into an updated national policy.
Sir Anthony made that speech in a shipyard. Bearing his words in mind, may we be told how the Government envisage that ship repair is to be handled? Do the Government see the ship repairing yards having the kind of flexibility which they now possess? Does the Minister see them being able to meet the demands of owners in the short notice that may be required? Will they have the necessary flexibility in charging?
If the Minister cannot satisfy us on those points, is he taking the attitude "I want all of my Bill—and the people in the yards can go hang"? Instead, will he not reconsider the matter? What is there to stop the Government including in the Queen's Speech on 24th November a new Bill just to nationalise ship repairing? That would get us all off the hook and would put an end to this futile tirade against the other place, which is only carrying out the job for which it was set up.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), although I appreciate that he has made a number of contributions on this subject both in the House and in Standing Committee. This is a brief debate as we all know, and I, too, shall be brief in my comments. This subject has been exhaustively discussed and is no longer in issue. What is in issue is the position of the House of Lords.
The hon. Member for Newbury referred to a mandate—he might like to know that I represent a constituency containing a shipbuilding and ship repair industry. I assure him that this matter has been discussed in one way or another in my constituency in the long time during which I have been a Member of Parliament. Certainly the subject has been far more exhaustively discussed than has devolution. It has been discussed in my constituency because it is a fact of life—an issue that affects the lives of the people who live there.
We are concerned about the question "For whom does the House of Lords speak?" Opposition Front Bench speakers say that it speaks for the overwhelming majority of the people. But does it? That statement has only to be expressed to be recognised as farcical. That surely is one claim that the House of Lords could never make. The only claim it can make is that it can exercise its power to seek to embarrass a Labour Government. That is the only occasion on which it seeks to exercise its power.
We all remember that we had a host of amendments on the Race Relations Bill. In the previous Session their Lordships discussed the Sex Discrimination Bill. They moved no amendments to that legislation, but when the Race Relations Bill came along, containing almost identical provisions to those in the Sex Discriminuation Bill, their Lordships carried a series of amendments. In view of the political climate, they chose to be difficult. Of course, this is a political matter.
I warn the Conservative Party over this matter, because Lord Carrington seems to be very active. I have already said that I have many shipbuilding workers in my constituency, but I should point out that the constituency also contains many miners who work in one of the biggest pits in the country. We remember that Lord Carrington had a major responsibility in what happened when the Tories upset everybody by their policy of confrontation. He will do the same again.

Mr. Tom King: Should not Lord Shinwell also be warned? I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) would not say that Lord Shinwell was unaware of this problem. Has he read the part of the noble Lord's speech which suggests that the ship repairing industry should not be included in the Bill?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) who knows how objective I am.
Last week I talked to a shipbuilder about the likely course of events. I was assured that the Conservative Party was anxious, because not only were there Conservative Peers in another place who


were running wild and whom it was difficult to advise; Cross-Benchers and Liberals were also causing great difficulty. These people in the other place do not speak for the majority of our people.
What I was about to say, which upset the hon. Member for Bridgwater—and he appreciates this as much as I do—was that it would be politically very dangerous if we had this confrontation. I am concerned with both management and men. Confrontation will be very harmful not only to the men in the industry, but to the companies.
We know—it is no good hiding the fact—that one or two companies are on the brink of liquidation. It is doubtful whether they will be able to hang on. They are thinking of weeks and months. If they go into liquidation—I assure my right hon. Friend that he is taking the right course—they will not get the compensation provided by the Bill. They will be taken over on receiver terms.
I argued the question of compensation in Committee. These companies are desperately anxious. It is all right for their Lordships, but these are people whose stake in the industry is threatened. The companies and the men are threatened. Therefore, Lord Carrington will have a confrontation not only with shipyard workers, but with the industry as a whole.
I can speak forcibly because this matter does not affect me directly. Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd. was taken over because it begged to be taken over by Court Line. In the next few months, if the Lords upset the whole of the Bill, other companies will demand to be saved. However, the terms will be those of receivership.
If there is a confrontation, the men will realise that the Conservative Party is trying to make political capital out of a national industry that is in desperate straits. We have only to read in today's Press about the difficulties with the Japanese. This is not the time to play politics. The problem in the industry is capital investment. The figure of £500 million has been mentioned. How will that be provided otherwise?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How will the Government provide it?

Mr. Willey: We shall provide it when the Bill is implemented. This is the best formula to provide it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made an intervention from a sedentary position. Today Mr. Speaker referred to sedentary interventions. I hope that hon. Members will not give way at all and will completely ignore any sedentary interventions.

Mr. Willey: I shall give way only to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was coming to a conclusion. It is no use saying that this will be a brief debate and then speaking at length.
This is the old issue which has continually faced this House with the House of Lords. We have taken our decision. I know that it is a party decision taken on party lines. There was never better whipping than on this legislation. There was no better prolonged discussion than in Committee on this legislation. The decision has been taken It is for the House of Commons to speak up for itself. That is the issue.

Mr. David Mudd: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for being both concise and consistent in his appraisal of the issue at stake in this debate.
It seems that the yardstick that he seeks to apply is simply that the ship repairing industry should remain part of the Bill in the interests of good industrial relations, investment and jobs. If this is the yardstick which the Secretary of State seeks to apply, by his own definition Falmouth Docks should not have been included in the Bill in the first place.
Falmouth Docks is an outstanding example of good industrial relations. There is a memorandum of agreement between the yard and management which is second to none in the ship repairing industry. There is no connection whatsoever between Falmouth Docks and the shipbuilding industry. The yard has neither received nor sought any grants whatsoever outside those which are available to industry within development areas.
For many years the yard has put men on social employment at times when the work load has been a bit lean. I hope that dispenses with the Secretary of State's


basic argument in relation to Falmouth Docks.
I turn now to the right hon. Gentleman's final point—that in any case this commitment was in the manifesto. With respect, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anybody else on the Government side can pick selectively from the commitments in the Labour Party General Election manifesto.
It will long be remembered in Cornwall that Labour's great manifesto commitment was to reduce unemployment, During the life of this Government—to a certain extent we must blame the Secretary of State in his time at the Department of Energy—we have seen the closure of the Hayle power station, and we now see the closure of the Ministry of Defence Research Establishment at Nancekuke and of the RAF Marine Unit at Falmouth. These closures lead to a direct loss of employment because of Government policy and are in total contradiction to the Labour Party's commitments. Time and again we have sought explanations for these matters. The Government have failed to give satisfactory answers. We have been fobbed off with excuses rather than explanations.
The Government may claim tonight that they are seeking to fulfil a long-standing commitment. Perhaps the commitment that they are seeking to fulfil tonight is the commitment made by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir Harold Wilson) when he addressed the Labour Party Conference in Scarborough in 1965. The right hon. Gentleman referred glowingly to the many men and women in Britain who were looking forward to "undreamed of leisure". If this measure goes through, unemployment in this industry will give many people "undreamed of leisure" by bringing them into the ranks of the unemployed.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I was going to address some of my remarks to the Minister of State, but he is just leaving the Chamber. I shall try to save the remarks which refer to him until he returns—if he returns soon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would prefer to resume his seat and allow me to call another Member?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should be obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do not wish to make those comments in the Minister's absence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course, that raises the problem whether the hon. Gentleman has already contributed to the debate. I think that he had better continue.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In the debate last Thursday night, on the very Lords amendments which we are again discussing, I made what I believed to be the important point that the total volume of employment in the ship repairing industry will depend more than anything upon the total volume of repair orders that come in from overseas. Those orders are not under the control of the British Government.
Three times the same morning in Committee—I pointed this out in the debate last Thursday night—the question was put to the Minister of State whether after the industry was nationalised, if a customer wished to specify the yard in which his ship was to be repaired, he would be able to do so, or whether the Corporation would have the right to divert his order to another yard. If that happened I believe that a significant proportion of the orders would be lost to this country. Each time that vital question was put the Minister refused to answer it.
When I put the question to the Minister last Thursday night he went off and consulted his advisers. I am prepared to believe that he had been taken for a ride by his advisers because, when he came back, the result was that he grossly misinformed the House on this crucial matter shortly before the House divided with a majority of only one for the Government. The Minister, referring to the specific point that I had made, said:
I wish to mention the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton because I thought that he made some valid points. The hon. Gentleman said, as he has said on many occasions, that he will not accept a Minister's assurance on this, that and the other because he likes lo see words written into a Bill. I think he is right.
The Minister added:
Therefore, I wish to draw his attention to Clause 5 of the Bill as it left this House in which we laid down the following …".
The Minister then quoted from Clause 5(2) of the Bill. I shall read what he


said, but I ask the House to note that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his quotation at the beginning of sub-paragraph (ii). He began it having left out a crucial sentence at the beginning of that sub-paragraph. I shall demonstrate. The Minister read out:
Therefore, I wish to draw his attention to Clauses of the Bill as it left this House in which we laid down the following:
'decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas of Great Britain, and in particular of Scotland and Wales and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to sales, pricing, production, the formulation and implementation of investment programmes, manpower planning and management, industrial relations and responsibility for financial performance'.
End of the Minister's quotation. He then added:
That is in the Bill and if it is carried it will, of course, be in the Act when it is passed. That is better than an assurance from me."—[Official Report, 11th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 751.]
What the Minister omitted to read out to the House was the sentence at the beginning of sub-paragraph (ii) which states
(ii) without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above, of seeking the largest degree, consistent with the proper discharge of its functions …".
The Minister then started his quotation, but sub-paragraph (i) said the opposite of what the Minister was quoting to the House. I shall read the whole of Clause 5(2) to demonstrate. I should like to believe that the Minister was misled by his own advisers and, in consequence, misled the House before there was a crucial vote that was carried by a majority of one.
Clause 5(2) states:
British Shipbuilders shall, forthwith after the shipbuilding industry vesting date and subsequently from time to time when it considers it appropriate or the Secretary of State so requires—

(a) undertake a review of the affairs of the Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purposes—

(i) of determining how the management of the activities of the Corporation and those subsidiaries can most efficiently be organised, and what steps are necessary in order effectively to promote industrial democracy in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries; and
(ii) "—


as I have already quoted—
without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above …".
That brings it home that what the Bill says is the exact opposite of the gravamen of what the Minister said to the House. The point I made was that if the Shipbuilding Corporation wishes to divert work away from ship repair yards to shipbuilding yards in order to make those more viable—with the result that employment is lost in the ship repair yards or, indeed, they are closed—it is totally within its power to do so. That is why the Minister refused on three occasions to answer the question: "Can a customer specify a given yard?"

6.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Without in any way accepting the charge that the lion. Gentleman makes—I shall endeavour to deal with it when I reply later—I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, because he is now telling us what all the Opposition have denied completely, namely, that it is perfectly possible and satisfactory to do ship repair in a shipbuilding dock just as it is possible to do shipbuilding in a ship repair dock. That is what I myself saw being done in Korea, and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made fun of me for that claim. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is now saying not only that it is possible but that we intend to control it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. I have not said that ship repair work can be carried out in every shipbuilding yard. What I have said is that the Government may intend to divert work from ship repair yards to shipbuilding yards. It is not in dispute that there are some shipbuilding yards which do undertake ship repair work.
The true state, as the House now knows it, is not as the Minister said,
decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres".
The Government have laid down no such thing in the Bill. The whole of that is
without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above,".
That sub-paragraph says that they can determine


how the management of the activities of the Corporation"—
not of the ship repairing industry but of the whole Corporation—
and those subsidiaries can most efficiently be organised,".
Therefore, what the Minister of State claims, doubtless misled by his advisers—[Interruption.] Either the Minister of State accepts responsibility for misleading the House himself or he was misled by his advisers. There is no third possible alternative.

Mr. Kaufman: First, there is never a third possible alternative. "Alternative" means one of two. It is derived from the Latin "alter": one of two—Leeds Grammar School 1943. The hon. Gentleman has shown himself misinformed on that matter. I do not accept that I misled the House. I certainly do not accept that anything I said was the result of my being misled by my advisers. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) knows, possibly better than any other hon. Member in this House, the sub-paragraph to which the hon. Member for Tiverton has referred was drafted at my initiative and request and in the terms that I requested following discussions with certain hon. Members of the House earlier in the proceedings. Therefore, I do not accept that I misled the House. I also think it is unfair of hon. Gentleman to lay the responsibility on my advisers for what is my own responsibility.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am glad to [earn that it was the Minister who misled the House because there is no third alternative. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. One can have exclusive alternatives or one can have 100 or even 1,000 alternatives. "Alternatives" are not confined to two, even in the English language.
I want to lay on the record that we now know that the Minister has written into the Bill not what he claimed by omitting the first sentence—
without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above".
What the hon. Gentleman has written into the Bill is a specific authorisation to the Corporation to divert work away from where the customer wants to put it. Ministers, and hon. Members on this side of the House, have concentrated on the

employment implications of these amendments. It is common ground between the two sides of the House that the volume of employment there will be in the ship repair industry depends more on overseas orders than on any other single factor. The reason for the high rate of unemployment in ship construction and ship repair at the moment is more than anything else the decrease in total world demand. There is a smaller cake to be divided up.
We must be in no doubt that if we disagree with the Lords amendments to take ship repairing out of the Bill there will be a lower total volume of employment in the ship repairing industry. By their amendments the Lords have sought to sustain employment. The Minister, by his disagreement with the Lords amendments in this respect, is promoting avoidable unemployment. He is also discouraging the earning of foreign currency, because repair work undertaken on vessels owned or chartered by firms abroad brings in foreign currency. So on both those counts it cannot be disputed logically that their Lordships are sustaining employment and the necessary efforts to bring foreign currency into an industry which is important for many reasons.
The ship repairing industry is important as a source of employment. It is also important because the employment which it generates tends to be in areas of high unemployment, whether Falmouth, Cardiff, Swansea, Wallsend or anywhere else. As I have said, it is a significant earner of foreign exchange, and that makes it doubly important.
Both sides of the House are agreed that this is not a captive market. There are many ship repair yards abroad to which ship owners can and will send their vessels for repair. During the debate last Thursday a specific instance was given:
On 28th July I quoted the letter from Holter-Sorenson and Company, which reads: 'with our experience with nationalised companies, we must regret to announce that, in the event of nationalisation of your firm, we shall no longer be interested in making use of your docking and repair facilities'."—[Official Report, 11th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 747.
What is the collision, if such there be, between the two Houses? It is that the Labour Government, purely for doctrinal


reasons and for no other, are endeavouring to insist that the exclusion of the ship repair industry be removed. If they really want to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, why do they not agree to their Lordships' amendments and then introduce a new Bill in the next Session to nationalise ship repairing? The reason is that they want this Bill to be delayed. They know that the nationalised aircraft and shipbuilding industries intend to terminate the employment of thousands of British workmen. They know that those industries intend to cause widespread unemployment—what they would call rationalisation. Therefore, they reason, why not so conduct Government policy that the Bill they pretend to want is delayed? Then more men will lose their jobs before nationalisation and they can claim that it is due to the Tory Party, the Liberal Party, the Welsh nationalists, the Scottish nationalists and the United Ulster Unionists. The Government can blame them for the shortage of world demand.
That is the Government's reason—the reason why they did nothing for six weeks during the second half of June and most of July. They did not try to make progress on the Floor of the House because they wanted the Bill delayed. They could either have let the Bill go to a Select Committee—it would have come out by about 7th July—or they could have commenced the Report stage in the second week of June. Instead they left it until the back end of July. So the delay in the Bill—a healthy delay, yes—is of their making and their intention. Any consequences that follow lie at the door of the Ministers in charge of the Bill and the Cabinet as a whole, who deliberately did not bring it on to the Floor of the House for nearly six weeks—

Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend omits to take into account the delay of six months or so before the Government brought forward the Bill for processing in the House, having laid it on the Table for its First Reading.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That may be for the reason let out of the bag by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who suggested to the House that the more firms that can be induced to go bust, having been rendered totally un-

creditworthy by the Bill among other things, the more will the Government be able to do the shareholders out of their proper compensation.
The duty of the House is, fortunately, coincident with the duty which the House of Lords is doing. There is no collision of duties. There is only a collision between the party political obstinacy of the Labour Party, in which the elector ate has shown a devastating lack of trust in areas traditionally loyal to the Labour Party—

Mr. Kaufman: Newcastle upon Tyne, Central?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Gentleman think that an election result in which a Member of Parliament is elected with under 5,000 votes is meaningful in any terms? That is the sort of mandate that the Chinese Government used to have—a heavenly mandate. The existence of the heavenly mandate was known only by the continued existence of the Government. When that Government were unseated by another the inference was that the heavenly mandate had been transferred. The heavenly mandate underwent a certain amount of erosion in Workington and Walsall, North, where electorates of the size that the Boundary Commission is supposed to ensure gave a definite opinion.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that when the Conservatives lost Bromsgrove, Sutton and Cheam, Isle of Ely and Ripon the House of Lords would have obstructed their legislation?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No, because the party concerned did not as a result of that have to rely on the casting vote of the Chair to carry its legislation. That is a distinction which is a difference. It was able to carry its policies into legislative effect with its members on the Floor of the House.
The House of Lords has done conscientiously the job that the House of Commons should have done. The House of Commons was prevented by the guillotine from giving consideration to the Bill on the Floor of the House. The Government introduced the guillotine not because they were short of time—they had six weeks after 7th June when they did nothing—but purely to stifle discussion and argument.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Rubbish.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why else did they do it? Will the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who was on the Committee, say why he said "Rubbish"? Or does he not have the courage of his convictions?

Mr. Ron Thomas: I thank the hon. Member for inviting me to interrupt him. Will he give one example of any other Bill upon which the House has spent so much time?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The House has spent very little time on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep in the Standing Committee and dreamt that he was on the Floor of the House. That explanation might account for the paucity of his contributions to the Committee.
Today the House of Commons has once more the chance of debating the necessity or otherwise of nationalising the ship repair industry. The Minister's arguments are threadbare of anything except political malice towards the ship repairing industry. An attempt to argue it away by quoting a part of the Bill without giving the whole quotation is now exploded. We know that still further unemployment will be engineered by the Government if they insist on their rejection of the Lords' amendments.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I intend to make a short speech and I declare my interest in that I worked in the Clyde shipyards for five years before coming to this House, that I represent a shipbuilding area and that I am an adviser to the Ship Repairers National Association.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that there is an analogy to be drawn between devolution and ship repairing nationalisation. Both are expensive, silly, damaging and bureaucratic. I hope that we shall reject them both.
The Minister must answer specific questions. Once again it has been alleged today that shipbuilding and ship repairing are closely integrated. The Secretary of State said today that there was considerable labour interchange. On

Second Reading, on 2nd December 1975, the right hon. Gentleman said that six of the 12 companies had an interchange of labour. Through the long Committee stage we went over this point many times trying to find a firm, apart from Scott Lithgow, which is a special case, where there was an interchange. The nearest we came to it was some inconclusive talk about one or two people in Wallsend. Does the Secretary of State still think that the industries are closely integrated?
Has the organising committee expressed any view to him about whether it would be difficult or impossible to go ahead with the Bill without ship repairing? Those involved in the shipyards believe that it is perfectly possible, and perhaps preferable, to separate shipbuilding from ship repairing.
The Secretary of State said that if we agree with the Lords we shall endanger the Bill. My party has consistently opposed the Bill. The one thing which stands out is that if the Government wanted to go ahead with shipbuilding and aircraft nationalisation they could do so and have it completed within a couple of days. However, they choose to say that because ship repairing is not included they will not do so and that instead there will be a long delay. Why have the Government taken that view? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gave an explanation. We know that a lot of redundancies will occur shortly after nationalisation. The Government's view might be that this should occur before nationalisation.
There may be a second explanation. The IMF discussions are now in progress and we know that time is short for the Government. The money borrowed on the standby credit must be repaid on 9th December, and the Government must therefore get a large loan very quickly. Have the IMF officials told the Government that there must be no nationalisation and no increase in the public sector borrowing requirement until the deal has been struck? It is clear that the Government are choosing to put off the Bill on the basis of a bogus argument about ship repairing.
All of my hon. Friends and I wish that politics had never been brought into this matter. A great deal of damage has been done to shipbuilding, aircraft


and ship repairing by two years of uncertainty and delay. But we are entitled to hear from the Government reassuring and confident reasons why shipbuilding and ship repairing cannot be separated when all those in the industry believe that they can be separated, and when all the arguments about interchangability were exploded in Committee. The Government should tell us the real reason for their attitude, but I doubt whether we shall get it today.

Sir Raymond Gower: I was disappointed at the Minister's attitude to the amendments. We have come a long way since the occasion, not so many years ago, when the late Herbert Morrison said that in proceeding towards nationalising industries any Government should proceed with caution and should never nationalise an additional industry without unanswerable reasons for doing so. We now see a very different picture. Modern nationalisers have an insatiable appetite. That is why they cannot conceive of an industry being left out of a sector that is to be taken over.
Would it not be adequate to take over the two enormous industries of shipbuilding and aircraft? Cannot the Government be content with that? No, they must grab the lot. It is as though they could not endure the possibility of some small successful competitor to the State sector. Among those smaller ship repairing firms there might be some very successful competitors who would show up the deficiencies of the State organisation.
That is in the very nature of the monster that some nationalised industries have now become, that they must be in a monopoly position. They cannot endure something that is beyond their control and that might highlight their inadequacies. That is why I am disappointed that the Government are not content to concentrate on the enormous task of making a success of shipbuilding and aerospace. It is not as though the nationalisation doctrine has been a conspicuous success throughout our economy. I cannot understand why Labour Members constantly decry the failure of private industry in Britain and say that it is surpassed by the industrial performance of other countries. Nearly all the countries that they quote are those which practise private industry. Those coun-

tries are among our most successful competitors.
We have contributed to our industrial decline in recent years by adopting this expedient of bringing industries into State ownership. The countries that have done well are those which, on the whole, have not taken that course. Yet Labour Members are prepared to disregard that lesson.
The Secretary of State referred to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. It is a successful company. The Secretary of State implied that there was great resistance among employees there against remaining outside the Bill. However, I can assure him that there is a lot of evidence put before Conservatives, Welsh nationalists and Liberals about the high regard for this company of those who work in it. I have met numerous individuals at all levels, from the bottom right up to board level.
This is the best example I have seen for some time of a company that commands a high degree of admiration and allegiance from those employed by it. This is a company that is practising those ideals of industrial democracy which have considerable support, at least in theory, on the Government Benches. It has put this into practice without legislative compulsion and is practising those ideals of profit-sharing and common ownership which I consider to be of considerable value if introduced voluntarily within the context of a particular industry. That is why this company commands so much support from its workers.
The company has shown great initiative in seeking orders and has gone overseas to seek and obtain them. Many of the people employed by the company are apprehensive that in future it will not be allowed to go out to seek orders because those orders will be directed to another part of the country. It will not be the initiative of this company or the lack of initiative that will determine its future; it will be some diktat from above. That is the weakness of a massive, centralised State organisation. It does not allow success to be achieved by localised initiative. By its very nature, decisions must be made from the centre. I fear that those who are pressing nationalisation on the country, for good or ill—I hope for good, but the lessons of the last


two decades make us doubtful about that—sustained as they are by a magnificent vote in the last General Election from 33 per cent. of our nation, will regret it, as will the country. The real trouble is that they will misguidedly bring to an end the identity of separate, successful and prosperous companies.
I am sorry that the Government are taking over these two great industries, but, by golly, those are two formidable tasks. Why can they not be content with and concentrate upon those? Why must they grab the lot? There is far too much smash and grab in the policies of this Government and I hope that they will not have the power to carry them out much longer.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I apologise for having had to leave the debate for a short while. We are going over ground that we have already gone over again and again. One hon. Member on the Opposition Benches suggested that we had not really looked at public ownership of ship repairing. He was reminded by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) of the time spent on this subject, at least in Committee, and of the many questions asked about it. Whether the hon. Member for Cathcart was satisfied with the answers is another matter, but we spent a great deal of time in Committee considering the public ownership of the ship repairing industry.
Other hon. Members said that the House of Lords had done its job, but let us just look at the amendments put down there. The Lords debated amendments to delete the aircraft industry, Scottish aviation, ship repairing, and warship building, and another to prevent the Bill becoming an Act before the next General Election. If those were not pure wrecking and mutilating amendments, I do not know what they were. What would have been left of this legislation if this elected Chamber had accepted those amendments? Nothing at all. Even to begin to suggest that the other Chamber has acted as a revising Chamber to tidy up its legislation is nonsense. The Lords have attempted to multilate this Bill, the Education Bill, the Dockwork Regulation Bill, the health services Bill and the agricultural Bill. This was not by revision or tidying up in a legislative fashion but

by carrying a whole series of amendments to completely wreck these Bills.
6.45 p.m.
The House of Lords is not a revisionary Chamber and I am very disappointed with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), because some of the things he said would make my friend, Lloyd George, turn in his grave. It seems the Liberals have come a long way since the days of Lloyd George. We know that the Tory-dominated House of Lords has tried to wreck both Liberal and Labour legislation, but that when there is a Tory majority in this House it has been silent.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I do not blame the hon. Member for a moment for not listening to my speech, but if he had, he would have heard me say that I held no brief for the Lords as an institution and that it had failed dismally to correct the appalling legislation of the Heath Administration.

Mr. Thomas: I accept that point. I remember the hon. Member saying it but what the hon. Member wants to do is pick and choose, saying, on the one hand, that he held no brief for the House of Lords but, on the other, that because it had done something with which he agreed it was a good institution. I would have thought that as a Liberal, believing in democratic institutions, the hon. Gentleman would have had no truck with that unelected Chamber. The Lords has this image of being a watchdog of the Constitution, but it is really a poodle of the Tory Party. I should have thought that Liberals who looked back to the days of Lloyd George would have joined with those on the Government Benches in getting rid of that unelected body as soon as possible. If we could get a brief Bill in this evening I would be very pleased.
We have heard a great deal about the wonderful firm of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. I am astonished at the reactions of so many hon. Members to a company such as this, which has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to bribe hon. Members to behave in a certain way. There is no question about it. I am not saying that the company has succeeded in bribing hon. Members, but they have spent tens of thousands of


pounds in wining and dining hon. Members in order to try to persuade them to their point of view.
When we last debated this matter and discussed the relationship between Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and their employees, we got from the Minister a totally different picture of the real situation. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some more information about the unfair dismissals from that firm. This Company has attempted to sustain a myth, and I am surprised that hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colne Valley, have been taken in. The company claims to be spearheading industrial democracy, but the truth is far from that.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) claimed that countries which had not gone in for public ownership had surged ahead, but many European countries have extended public ownership more than Britain. We are way behind, in, for example, banking and finance. To hon. Members opposite, the suggestion of control over banking and finance is a Maoist or Trotskyite revolutionary policy. But there are many so-called capitalist nations in Europe which have extended public ownership into banking, finance and aerospace. We are way behind in that regard.
More particularly, it seems to me that the Tories and their friends have always supported taking into public ownership two types of industry. The first is industry that is absolutely bankrupt. On that basis it is all right to take into public ownership Rolls-Royce and to do everything possible to justify it.
The second is the type of industry that is essential for the success of the rest of the private sector. It is all right to take into public ownership firms of that type. The private sector in Britain would have collapsed long ago had we not nationalised coal, electricity, railways and certain other areas of the economy. It would have collapsed immediately after the last war.
The Tories go along with public ownership to that extent, so that the industries thus nationalised may ensure the profitability of private industry. When any industry looks like going bankrupt, the Tories are in favour of taking it into public ownership, but if an indus-

try is profitable that is a different matter altogether.
The other Chamber had the cheek to say that warship building could not be taken into public ownership because it is profitable. It is profitable because of the use of taxpayers' money.
I have hardly heard a word said about shipbuilding in these debates. Why have there been no tears flowing down the aisles in regard to shipbuilding? The reason is that it is practically collapsing. The companies, the previous owners, have taken every ounce of profit out of shipbuilding and put nothing back. The industry is on the brink of collapse; therefore we have the same old Tory cry about taking it into public ownership. But if there were any chance of shipbuilding showing a profit, there would be all hell let loose in order to prevent it from being taken into public ownership.
In our election manifesto we said that we would take into public ownership shipbuilding and ship repairing. I am very pleased indeed that the Government are standing firm and telling the House of Lords "We shall carry out that manifesto pledge." If it becomes a question of the peers against the people, the hon. Member for Colne Valley ought to know which side he should be on.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise for missing the opening remarks of the Secretary of State and an opportunity to intervene in relation to the comments made thereafter.
I am surprised in many ways that I find myself in total agreement with the almost incredible postulation advanced by the hon. Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), that by this stage the Government do not want the Bill. They do not want ship repairing, shipbuilding or the aircraft industry nationalised, and are playing for time in order to lose the Bill. They are doing it deliberately for motives best known to themselves.
If the Government wanted to get the Bill through they could have done so last week. They had a perfectly good opportunity to do so then, without jeopardising anything to do with shipbuilding or aircraft. They needed only to accede to the point—made by many hon. Members


in all parties, including the Labour Party, at earlier stages of the Bill—that ship repairing should be excluded from the Bill. The Government chose not to do this, and in that way they are jeopardising, according to their own line, the likelihood of continued employment in the aircraft industry in places such as Broughton. The same can be said in regard to shipbuilding.
The Government are now willing to throw it all away because, presumably, on the one hand they have the International Monetary Fund breathing down their neck and telling them what policies they may or may not follow and, on the other, it would seem that they want to be able to go into the next election with a manifesto for the reform of the House of Lords, with an instance that they can readily call to mind of a major Bill being lost as a result of the intervention of the House of Lords. Only in that way can they rally their troops around their tattered flag.
I believe that this is the reality of the present situation. If between now and next Tuesday there is not some compromise on the issue of ship repairing, I am certain that my belief will be confirmed.
Throughout the debate Labour Ministers and Labour Members have spoken of the common ground between shipbuilding and ship repairing. A few minutes ago the hon. Member for Cathcart referred to the fact that six companies may have had an involvement in shipbuilding and ship repairing, and that six did not. Of the 12 that we are discussing in the amendment, which has to do with ship repairing only, at least four have no interface whatsoever with shipbuilding. It is possible that some compromise could be reached over these four companies, but the Government are not willing to discuss compromise. It is all or nothing for them, perhaps in the certainty that they will get nothing and will then be able to blame others for what has happened.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has referred to the possible creation of 1,000 jobs in Port Talbot which required £100 million investment. The Government were not willing to find it. They said that they did not have the money. Yet they are willing to put

up £150 million for the Bill. They could get their way at two-thirds of that cost, and provide 1,000 extra jobs if they were less pig-headed about the amendment and would reach a sensible compromise. The people of Port Talbot will lose 1,000 jobs because of the stubbornness of the Government in this matter.
The hon. Member for Tiverton referred to a letter of March of this year that I quoted. I now have one dated 19th October, from Mr. George Walls, general manager of Empresa Hondureña de Vapores, S.A., of New York, in which it says—
Should this tragic step materialise, we feel that we would have to take a hard look at our practice of repairing our vessels al Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd. yards, or any British yard".
I see that the Minister of State is showing his usual Pavlovian reaction to the mention of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited.
Recalling the words of the Secretary of State in opening the debate, if he was so happy that the employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited were so much in favour of nationalisation, why did the Government turn down our amendment asking for a ballot to be taken among the employees? The fact is that the Government know that they would lose such a ballot devastatingly. There has, in fact, been a proposal signed by some 300 employees of that company supporting the removal of the company from the Bill.
If the Bill goes forward, we shall see a sector of industry run down in a devastating way, and probably killed off. If that happens, there will be jobs lost in Wales and elsewhere.

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose—

Mr. Wigley: No, I shall not give way. I put it that we have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. We can have only one hon. Gentleman occupying the Floor at the same time.

Mr. Wigley: I shall not give way. I am trying to be brief. Last week the Minister said that the implications of carrying the amendment were not as serious as they were in regard to other amendments. The Government now have


a practical opportunity for a meeting of minds. They can get through those parts of the Bill that they regard as most essential. If the Bill is thrown out, it will show the Government's total hypocrisy and cynicism towards the whole Bill. The fact that they are climbing down on the whole Bill, and do not have the guts to say it publicly, is a reflection of their policy.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I am sorry that the lion. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has left the Chamber, because he used a very interesting argument. I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman has now returned, because I am sure that he would like to hear part of my remarks, at any rate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of a percentage vote, and claimed that the 33 per cent. vote, or whatever it was, that the Labour Party received at the last General Election was not a justification for pursuing certain policies, particularly the one that we are debating today.
I recall that since 1945 no Government have been elected with an overall majority in this Chamber. It may also be mentioned that 56 per cent. of the Members of this House were not elected by a majority of votes. The Conservative Government—of which I am sure the hon. Member for Barry was a strong supporter—introduced measures such as the Industrial Relations Act and claimed, when so doing that, that they had a mandate from the electorate to pursue their policy. It seems a little hypocritical for them now to condemn this Government for pursuing a similar tactic. We all have to recognise that this has been done by Governments of both parties over the past 25 years. Therefore, there can be no claim that my right hon. and hon. Friends are acting in any way against what has become custom and practice.
7.0 p.m.
In terms of the argument about public ownership, which was again pursued by the hon. Member for Barry, it seems to me that from the moment that this Bill was first discussed in this House we have been involved in a debate about public ownership. The last-ditch stand by the Opposition and their allies in the House of Lords is intended to prevent ship repairing being taken into public owner-

ship. One wonders why they are not taking the same stand about shipbuilding. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) made some valuable remarks in this regard, and I think that he was right when he pointed out that at the moment one is relatively profitable and the other is in the doldrums.
I think that we have to look at the basis of the Government's approach to public ownership. The hon. Member for Barry argues that the Government are concerned about monopolies that are outside our control but that we want to establish a monopoly of our own. The reason why we are concerned with monopolies in Britain which are outside our control—though in fact in the main they are oligopolies—is precisely that we wish to do a planning exercise in regard to our economy and that we recognise that if we leave economic forces to the play of the market we shall be prevented from so doing.
Without the exercise of Government control, the monopolies will take decisions on the basis of not what is in the best interests of the people and the needs of the country, which we would seek to do under planning, but what is likely to maximise their profits, be they at home or abroad. It is against that background that we reaffirm our belief that only through public ownership can we get real planning and make the sort of advances in economic terms that we need.

Sir Raymond Gower: In that case, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the most successful companies in the world today are achieving these results without the State monopoly of which he is so fond?

Mr. Thorne: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not named his most successful countries. Nor does he indicate their basis of success. He may well say, for example, that the United States of America is an extremely powerful and successful country. But I suggest that there is nothing powerful and successful about a country which registers between 7 million and 8 million unemployed. When making statements of that kind, we have to decide the criteria by which we define "successful" economies.
In my view, we shall get a successful economy operating in Britain only when


we have large-scale planning at the centre. I look forward to a new form of nationalisation. In Committee, many of us reiterated that we did not want to see a nationalised industry under the control of a centralised bureaucracy with the workers who are responsible for creating the product and the profits being divorced from decision making.
Happily, in this Bill we have certain assurances—some of us believe that they are rather limited—to suggest that, following the launching of the two corporations, we can begin the process of creating a situation in which both blue-collar and white-collar workers will participate in decisions about the future of their industries and, therefore, that we shall eradicate some of the ills existing at present in our nationalised industries, which I recognise and accept. Obviously, mistakes were made when the National Coal Board and other organisations were set up. There were mistakes in the recruitment to the respective boards. The qualifications of some generals and air vice-marshals were not in keeping with the needs of those industries. But the recruits to the two new boards so far appear to have an understanding of the industries in which they are involved, and I think that they can learn from the rank and file in those industries how best to create the sort of industrial democracy which I referred to earlier.
As for Bristol Ship Repairers and the others in the section which the House of Lords wishes to delete from the Bill, I confirm the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. During the Committee stage, I received a nice little envelope, appropriately addressed, containing an invitation card which suggested that there might be something worth discussing if I went to a certain luncheon room, had a few drinks, a lunch and a chat, and that in an atmosphere of conviviality we could probably reach some understanding of what was involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West referred to that as an implied bribe. In my view, when we talk about inviting councillors in local authorities to meet representatives of the building industry to discuss contracts over drinks and lunches, we are entitled to be a little suspicious. If that is the case at

local level, is it not just as true at national level, when representatives of industries come here, using consultants and lobbyists who are professionals—a growing practice in British politics—to cause Members of Parliament to act in such a way that it protects their economic interests. I submit that, as far as we are able in accordance with our lights, our responsibility is to contribute to the making of decisions which meet the needs of the British people.
It is against that background that Government supporters applaud the decision of my right hon. and hon. Friends to go ahead with this Bill as it stands, with no compromises to the other unelected Assembly down the corridor.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: There are one or two respects in which I greatly envy the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). The first is his lofty contempt for his creditors. I wish that I had the sauce to go to my bank, tell the manager that he did not know how to run his business and that the place was a shambles, and generally express the contempt that the hon. Gentleman expressed for the United States, and then hold out my hand for the sort of money for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been to the United States recently again to grovel in order to keep this country on its course of spending disaster.

Mr. Thorne: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not go cap in hand to the IMF with my blessing?

Mr. Tebbit: I should very much like to see the sort of blessing that the right hon. Gentleman would get from the hon. Member for Preston, South if he could not raise another massive loan to keep this country staggering on deeper and deeper in debt.
There is another feature of the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston, South which I find remarkable—his threshold of corruptibility. If he is afraid that his Socialist views will be corrupted by a gin and tonic before lunch, he is a pretty weak-minded fellow. I must confess that I have occasionally accepted a drink from Socialist friends, but that has not changed my opinions in any way. I do not believe that the hon. Member is so easily


corrupted by a drink or a meal. What he is really afraid of is that he might get a touch of common sense rammed into his blinkered mind by people who know about the real world. He has successfully kept himself out of this real world by sitting among his friends below the Gangway.
I have a short word to say to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). I think that he was wrong in one major respect. He referred to the Dock Work Regulation Bill being destroyed by the House of Lords. He is wrong. The other place gives this House a chance for second thoughts; this House took the opportunity, and destroyed the rotten Bill. It was this House which killed the Bill, or disembowelled it, or whatever the current trendy word is.

Mr. Ron Thomas: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: No, I shall not give way. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can possibly differ from me on that point.
At each stage of this Bill the Government have had narrow majorities, which have tended to get narrower all the time. Then, of course, there was the business of the disputed vote—something in which Labour Members can take no pride. There are two by-elections pending in Government-held seats, both of which would be lost on current form. The Under-Secretary may smirk, but obviously his arithmetic is not too bright. What-ever mandate the Government had when they first introduced this Bill, they are losing it fast, by-election by by-election. This is a lame-duck Government, with lame-duck Ministers in a lame-duck business. They will suffer the fate of all lame ducks—they will get subsidies for a while, if they can find someone to bail them out, but sooner or later they will come to the end of their career and be finished.
If the Government insist on confrontation with the other place—and the other place has rightful powers—and insist on repudiating the will of the people, they must take the consequences. If the Government chose to take the Bill without the provision to nationalise ship repairing they could bring in a short Bill next Session to nationalise the ship repairing industry, if they still had a majority. If they choose to throw this Bill away, they

can invoke the Parliament Act and bring back the Bill in December. But I warn them that it would take longer to get that long Bill through than a short one, on the assumption that they have a majority for either. Both the House and the country must come to the same conclusion as the spokesmen for both the Welsh National and Liberal Parties, that if the Government turn down the Lords compromise it will be because they do not want the Bill at all. It will seem that they want to delay the nationalisation process, if not drop it altogether.
In the meantime the Government are using the spiteful policy enunciated by the Minister of State, which will cause massive redundancies in these two industries. There will be no new private investment in the industries while they are under the shadow of nationalisation. At the same time the Government have said that there will be no launching aid for the civil aviation industry until it is nationalised. Thus, the Minister of State has effectively told the world that if the industry is not nationalised it will be wrecked. That is no basis on which any industry, in private or public ownership, can make contracts with the world abroad. The Minister of State wants to close factories and shipyards and put men on the dole by proxy because he lacks the guts to do it himself. But he knows that his policies will lead to these results, inevitably.
7.15 p.m.
I turn briefly to the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers affair. That company has been spoken of at length, and I regret that we must discuss it again tonight, particularly as this suggests that other companies are not so worthy of saving from nationalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and the Secretary of State both mentioned the company, and said that shop stewards claimed that 75 per cent. of the Swansea work force wanted the company to be nationalised. If that is so there has been a sudden change of mind, and I wonder why.
I understand that 10 weeks ago workers in that yard tumbled to the fact that in the public sector businesses were run differently from those in the private sector. They realised that once they were in the public sector it did not matter whether they made money or even


worked, they would be bailed out. It was discovered that a number of overtime workers had adopted the practice of leaving the yard at 5.30 pm while a few of their mates remained to clock off at 7.30 pm. That is the British Leyland style of overtime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
About 100 men were caught at this trick, and they got written warning that they would be sacked if it continued. Their attitude was that it did not matter, because all the workers in the yard would soon be on the Government payroll. An overtime ban was imposed, and as a result an order by Texaco for repairing one of its ships was three weeks late in completion. This order was worth £500,000 and because of the delay Bristol Channel Ship Repairers lost orders for repairing two more Texaco ships, which went to Greece instead. So far, that little exercise has lost us £1 million in overseas earnings, and 70 man-years of work. This is all directly attributable to what is known abroad as "the English disease", but what might more appropriately be called "Kaufman's disease".

Mr. Kaufman: I thought that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) wanted to speak. I awaited his intervention because it would have had a cleansing effect after that last speech.
I am astonished that after all this time any hon. Gentleman should believe a single word which emanates from Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, and read to the House the phoney allegations that that company has produced. The one fact that has been established without any argument at all is that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers sacked workers who supported nationalisation. When the Bill came before the House in July I informed the House of that unfair dismissal procedure. This very week—I realise that I may be accused of rigging the timing to suit the debate—the appeals by Bristol Channel Ship Repairers against the findings of unfair dismissal of four of its employees were dismissed by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and the company was refused leave to appeal again. That is the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers.
As the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is about to intervene I should say to him that I think it is very sad that he has been misled into getting on to the hook of the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. A few men who have totally misrepresented to him the situation in those yards have alienated him from the true feelings of the Welsh workers who work in them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has read out the letter that he received from 76 per cent. of the workers in the Swansea yard who have now been vilified by the company because they have had the daring to write to a Minister saying that they support the Government. In exactly the same way I have received telegrams supporting the Government—I received one only last week—from the Transport and Genera] Workers' Union at Bristol Channel Ship Repairers in Cardiff. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has just received a letter, which he has handed to me, from an address in Cardiff. I shall not name the writer because he would undoubtedly be victimised by these people if I did. The letter says:
I would like to thank you on behalf of my colleagues in the TGWU in Cardiff dry docks for your continued efforts to get the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill on the statute book.
It goes on to say:
We are optimistic that the Government will be successful within the next two weeks and that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers will be a part of British Shipbuilders.
If hon. Members are talking about the bona fides of letters that either emanate from or are addressed to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, I would tell them that this worker at Bristol Channel Ship Repairers who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Lord President, said:
Today or yesterday a director asked the worker directors and shop stewards to sign a letter of thanks which was to be sent to the House of Lords. I believe the TGWU shop steward refused to sign it. Our concern is that this letter will appear to represent everybody in the dry docks.
He goes on to say:
A number of us were hoping that our union officers would have organised a party to the House of Commons to support the Government the next time Mr. Bailey is there with his tame poodles.


The hon. Member for Caernarvon has been sadly misled. Whenever the workers in Bristol Channel Ship Repairers have dared to resent the victimisation from which they suffer from Mr. Bailey and his colleagues, and the kind of filthy vilification to which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) so aptly lent himself—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caernarvon represents a great constituency, and a Member who stood up against the House of Lords, and he has mixed himself up in matters which are unsavoury and in which he ought not to involve himself.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister answer three points? First, of the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers employees, 280 out of 300-odd are still opposed to the Government. Will he also comment on why the Government refused a referendum among the employees, if the Government are so convinced of the Tightness of their case? Second, before coming to the House I lived in the Glamorgan area and I knew many employees on the shop floor of the company—before I knew anyone in the management—and I know and respect their judgment. Third—a point on which I wanted to intervene earlier—in relation to the case reported in the Press this week I must tell the Minister that the case was lost because the presentation made to the judge was on points of facts, and he would accept only points of law.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall never challenge the hon. Gentleman's own experience. I will challenge any fact that he quotes if he says that it has been supplied to him by Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, because the company's word cannot be believed on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman says that over 200 workers have signed a letter. I am sure that they have—because they are made to sign these letters. We have information as to how it is done, how workers in those yards are asked to sign letters and the letters must be taken to the management for the management to post, so that it is certain that they are posted. We have a great deal of information about what takes place there.
The hon. Gentleman has mixed himself up in something unworthy of him. I say "unworthy" because I have respect for

him. Even when I have never been able to persuade him to agree with me I have had respect for him. He can get mixed up in cleaner things than that.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the Minister explain why on 10th April 1975 he voted on Second Reading of the Referendum Bill in favour of a referendum but did not avail himself of the opportunity that he had of having a referendum among these workers?

Mr. Kaufman: There was a poll about whether Bristol Channel Ship Repairers should be nationalised—in Cardiff, South-East at the last two General Elections.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Oh really!

Mr. Kaufman: Yes. Mr. Christopher Bailey of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers offered himself in the first election as an independent Liberal candidate and got 3,000 votes. In the following election he offered himself as Liberal candidate and got 8,000 votes, coming third. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister beat him by a very large majority. That was the verdict of the people in Cardiff about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. Liberal Members are under some kind of impression that Mr. Bailey is a Liberal. He is whatever suits him. Therefore, Liberal Members have got on the same unsavoury hook.
I would say this for SNP Members: they are here out of sympathy. They are doing some kind of exchange deal with their Plaid Cymru colleagues. That, at least, is nice of them. But they have not got mixed up in these nasty things and I am sure they are cleaner for it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Taylor) asked a series of perfectly ludicrous questions, most of which do not deserve an answer. However, he answered one of his questions himself. He asked how he could illustrate that the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries were integrated in some way. He then muddled up various qualifications of his own, and sneaked in the fact that he is the paid adviser to a body called the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association. Why is there such an association? Why does it have a joint organisation that pays him to represent it in the House? It is very interesting that there is not a separate shipbuilders' organisation


and a separate ship repairers' organisation. But no, they go together—and the hon. Gentleman is paid to represent them. He, of all people, asks what link there is between them. It is quite extraordinary.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) asked a question to which he clearly deserves an answer. He asked about the remarks made by Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin about the way in which shipbuilding yards were to operate and asked whether ship repairing yards were to operate in the same way. The answer is that under the provision in Clause 5, which I have read out, they will be treated identically. I shall read out the relevant provision once again—and certainly read the words which the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) claims that I omitted. [Interruption.] I prefer to answer the hon. Member for Newbury myself, if the hon. Member for Tiverton will permit me. What we say is that
British Shipbuilders shall, forthwith after the shipbuilding industry vesting date and subsequently from time to time when it considers it appropriate or the Secretary of State so requires—

(a) undertake a review of the affairs of the Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purposes—

(i) of determining how the management of the activities of the Corporation and those subsidiaries can most efficiently be organised, and what steps are necessary in order effectively to promote industrial democracy in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries; and
(ii) "—


this is the part that is directly relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question—
without prejudice to the generality of subparagraph (i) above, of seeking the largest degree, consistent with the proper discharge of its functions, of decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas of Great Britain, and in particular of Scotland and Wales and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to sales, pricing, production, the formulation and implementation of investment programmes, manpower planning and management, industrial relations, and responsibility for financial performance.
What we are doing is putting the shipbuilding yards and the ship repairing yards on all fours. All of them will have the kind of independence of operation that is provided for in this subsection.
7.30 p.m.
Further on in the clause, the hon. Member will see that the Board of British Shipbuilders will be required to make a report to the Secretary of State upon the Corporation's conclusions arising from the review and the action that it proposes to take in the light of those conclusions. The report on the first review will have to be made to the Secretary of State before such date, no more than six months after the relevant vesting date. So what Sir Anthony Griffin said about shipbuilding refers in toto to ship repairing also. There will be the same kind of operation.
The message that goes to the House of Lords from this Government, and which we ask the House of Commons to endorse in a few moments is clear and simple. This Government were elected on a clear pledge to nationalise shipbuilding, ship-repairing, marine engineering, and airframe manufacture.
This Bill covers all four industries. The House of Commons has three times reaffirmed that this should be so after separate debates in Standing Committee, on Report, and on Lords amendments.
The Government are firm in their insistence that the Bill should reach the statute book with all four industries still included. There have been no deals and there will be no deals. If this Bill falls through the action of the House of Lords, it will be for the House of Lords to carry full responsibility of the disastrous consequences to the industries affected that will undoubtedly and inevitably ensue.
For two years or more the aircraft industry world-wide has been in deepening depression. Under private ownership there has been no serious move to take decisions on the next round of major civil aircraft projects: with the approach of public ownership that has changed quickly and decisively in the last three or four months. Within a short time—perhaps within months—the United Kingdom aircraft industry and the United Kingdom Government are going to have to decide which international collaborative projects to join, and negotiate terms. We are going to have to demonstrate the viability of our industry as a partner. No one doubts its technical viability. But its organisational viability, and its financial ability to provide the massive sums necessary for participation, are in doubt.
Indeed, hon. Members opposite have accused us of saying that we will not provide the money for private enterprise to be enterprising with. These matters have been thrown into doubt wilfully and knowingly by the House of Lords.
If nationalisation and the consequent amalgamation are delayed for a year, the international collaborative decisions will have been taken before vesting. The negotiating position of the British companies will be immeasurably weakened by four factors: the fact that they remain disunited; the organisational uncertainty which, I state as a fact, already concerns potential overseas partners; the improbability of the companies or their shareholders putting up the whole or the major proportion of the cost of such participation; and the extent to which the Government may feel unjustified in providing a significant part of that cost by way of launching aid while the companies remain disunited and in private ownership.
Those factors taken together make it likely that, if this Bill does not proceed, if the House of Lords persists in blocking it by its insistence on these amendments, the British aircraft industry will wholly or partly miss out on the next round of civil aircraft collaboration, and that many thousands of jobs will be lost, permanently, in consequence. That is what the House of Lords is taking on itself.
In shipbuilding, the circumstances are different but the result will be the same—literally many thousands of jeopardised jobs, in merchant shipbuilding, marine engine building and ship repair.
The solution of the serious problems facing merchant shipbuilding in the immediate future can be arrived at in an orderly way only through public ownership, which will enable a planned and coherent strategy to be applied, instead of a process of disorderly, unplanned closures with last-minute appeals to the Government for rescue. There will be grave social and economic consequences, in some of the worst areas for employment.
Without public ownership the Government will be powerless to control the timing and extent of these collapses. In some cases there might be a case for assistance, but the case for assisting a fragmented industry in private ownership,

with poor prospects of being handled in a coherent way, is very different from the case for financing a Corporation which owns and controls the main firms in the industry and is handling them within a comprehensive strategy, agreed with the companies and with the unions.
In ship repairing, too, there are some firms whose position is serious. The same considerations apply. Lloyd's List of today's date says:
Mr. George Arnold, chairman of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on the Tyne described as 'farcical' a situation where the Lords could stop ship repairing going into public ownership when everyone had worked towards this for the past two years.
This is a man speaking for workers in ship repairing. According to Lloyd's List, he said that
Fragmented ownership did not help the industry in the present difficult time.
The quotation goes on:
Mr. John Elliott, works convenor at the North Shields repair yard of Swan Hunter Shiprepairers, spoke of the yards being in a bad enough state.
The Government are committed to this legislation—on aircraft and guided weapons, on shipbuilding, ship repair and marine engineering. I call on the House to support us in the Lobby.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I had not intended to intervene in the debate—[An HON. MEMBER: "Well, do not do so, then."] I am delighted to intervene because the Minister's comments were utterly unsatisfactory. He spent most of his time dealing with the affairs of one yard in South Wales. Surely he should have concentrated on the whole principle of nationalising ship repairing.
This is a matter of the gravest concern on Tyneside. It is one of the principal industries in the North-East and in my constituency we have the largest ship repair yard in the country: There can be only one basis for the future of ship repairing in this country, and that must be efficiency. It is simply a question of under which form of ownership we will achieve the most efficient ship repair industry—private or public.
I ask hon. Members opposite to give me one example from the existing State ownership of industry to suggest that our ship repairers will have a better future under public ownership than under private—

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: North-East Shiprepairers, which is publicly owned now.

Mr. Trotter: I am glad of that intervention, because that company has just closed down Greenwells dry dock and thrown several hundred men out of work. That is how State ownership has helped so far in the North-East. I believe that some union leaders in Sunderland said at the time that if any private yard had behaved in that way the whole of the Wear would have come out on strike. That is an example of public ownership, of the State as employer.
The efficiency of the British ship repair yards compares very well at the moment with the yards of our competitors in North-West Europe. We hear much criticism of our yards, but that fact is overlooked by Ministers and their supporters. The reports and reviews of ship repairing have shown that, although there are problems, those problems are shared by our competitors and that the record of the British ship repairing industry in recent years is better than that of its competitors in North-West Europe.
This is an international industry. There is no captive market for ship repairing. It is not like the gas industry or the railways. There are alternatives. If one wants to buy gas in this country, one must go to the nationalised gas corporation, whether it is efficient or not. But if one is a shipowner, one can go to the Dutch, German or French yards. There is no more international industry than this. Efficiency will decide where ships are repaired in future, whether in North Shields or South Wales on our side of the Channel or in Hamburg or Rotterdam on the other side.
The numbers of ships involved are also completely different from those involved in shipbuilding. In one yard on the Tyne perhaps 300 ships are repaired in a year, with a vast number of ships coming in for relatively short periods of work. They come in at very short notice and dry docks are booked up only a few weeks ahead—an arrangement which requires great flexibility from the management of the yards. One feature of State ownership is the bureaucracy and lack of flexibility in the management of those

enterprises. It is hard to think of an industry which is less suitable for national control and management than the ship repair industry. At the end of the day we shall see empty yards, repetitions of the closures of yards such as Greenwells.
There are no State-owned ship repair yards in Europe. None of our competitors regard the State ownership of the ship repair industry as essential. The Government's main reason for this proposal is based on dogma. It is not based on a belief that it will increase efficiency but on Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution. The proposal is one further step down the path towards the complete State control of the whole of British industry.
The people who work in the ship repair industry are being deluded into believing that under State ownership they will have access to a bottomless purse and continuous employment. But Greenwells should be an example to them of what a delusion that is. Efficiency alone will decide whether there is continuous employment.
What do the customers say? The General Council of British Shipping has not publicly expressed dismay at the thought of the State ownership of the shipbuilding industry. Many of the heads of British shipping companies are against that proposal in principle but they have not thought it right to interfere. But, as users, they have expressed their complete opposition to the public ownership of the ship repair industry. I suggest that in this case the customer is right. The livelihoods of the people in our ship repair yards depend upon an efficiency that will be better obtained if we agree with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. Tom King: We have returned to a familiar subject. It is particularly familiar to those of my hon. Friends who have had the misfortune to listen today to the speech of the Minister of State, which was his usual standard. I thought that I had heard everything from him during the passage of the Bill but I have never heard a more pernicious or squalid speech than that which he made today. He is willing to tell everyone that other people should not be trusted but we have listened to the things that he has had to produce at a late stage


to help him with his case. He has produced a variety of last minute letters and allegations. I cannot demolish his argument as effectively as did the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) with his personal experience of the industry.
The Minister of State demeans the office which he holds and dignity of his Ministry. In the previous debate he grossly insulted a Queen's Counsel and, by any standards, made a lame withdrawal. Once again he has maligned someone who has no opportunity to reply. The continuous abuse of parliamentary privilege by a Minister of the Crown is a disgrace even to this Government.
Against that background the cynical attitude which the Government are adopting towards the Bill can be better understood. The Minister of State said that the House of Lords was entirely responsible for whether the aircraft and shipbuilding industries are nationalised. Nothing could be further from the truth.
7.45 p.m.
We have fought the Bill every inch of the way. We have been determined to prevent the nationalisation of these industries. But we have to accept that in the case of aircraft and shipbuilding we have failed in our efforts. It lies within the Government's power to nationalise those industries—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State might listen to what I am saying instead of barking. He should save his voice. I know that he has been ill but I could understand if he regrets being here today for reasons other than health.
It lies within his power to take these industries into public ownership. In his speech he used the same phrase as the Minister of State in the House of Lords. He said that there was an urgent need in respect of the aircraft industry and in respect of the shipbuilding industry. The

Secretary of State can check the speech made in the House of Lords and that which he made in the Commons when he justified the nationalisation of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. Neither he nor the Minister of State named ship repairing. They said that the effect on the aerospace and shipbuilding industries would be catastrophic. They did not mention ship repairing.

They have said that these industries are at risk. That is their judgment, not ours. The Secretary of State is prepared to take that risk by taking the action that he is taking today. He did not say that the ship repair industry was facing a catastrophic situation.

The judgment in this case has been made by the House of Lords—not by Tory peers alone but by the great rank of opinion in that House. The most savage things said about ship repairing in this Bill were said by the noble Lord, Lord Shin well. I am not allowed to quote his words verbatim but he made comments on the particular ocean into which could jump those who criticised his view that great harm would be done to the country and the people who worked in the industries if ship repairing were nationalised.

The Government have not made their case. It lies within their power to achieve what they regard as their crucial objective. But they are cynically, deliberately and in an act of pique over a relatively small section of one industry, deciding to put it all at risk. That is the action that they will take if they insist on disagreeing with the Lords amendments. Let there be no doubt who is taking that responsibility and who is making the judgment.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 280, Noes 278.

Division No. 420.]
AYES
[7.48 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bean, R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Allaun, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Jack
Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Atkinson, Norman
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boyden, James (B1sh Auck)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bradley, Tom
Cant, R. B.


Bates, Alf
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carmichael, Neil




Carter, Ray
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Clemitson, Ivor
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Radice, Giles


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Janner, Greville
Richardson, Miss Joe


Concannon, J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Nell
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Selby, Harry


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Short. Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Litterick, Tom
Silkin. Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Loyden, Eddie
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Small, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Snape, Peter


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing. Nigel


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stoddart, David


English, Michael
MacKenzie, Gregor
Stott, Roger


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maguire. Frank (Fermanagh)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thorns, Stan (Preston South)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Tierney, Sydney


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tomlinson, John


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Torney, Tom


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Varley. Rt Hon Eric G.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mendelson, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


George, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gilbert, Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkins, David


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkinson. John


Golding, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Weetch, Ken


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland
White, James (Pollok)


Gram, John (Islington C)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Grocott, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Noble, Mike
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hatton, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ovenden, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Woodall, Alec


Hooley, Frank
Padley, Waller
Woof, Robert


Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parker, John
FELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Huckfield, Les
Parry, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Joseph Harper



Pendry, Tom








NOES


Adley, Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Alison, Michael
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mills, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Moate, Roger


Awdry, Daniel
Goodlad, Alastair
Molyneaux, James


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gorst, John
Monro, Hector


Baker, Kenneth
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus


Banks, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Beith, A. J.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bell, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grieve, Percy
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Biffen, John
Grist, Ian
Mudd, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Newton, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hannam, John
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Havers, Sir Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brittan, Leon
Hawkins, Paul
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hayhoe, Barney
Pardoe, John


Brotherton, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Parkinson, Cecil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Henderson, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hicks, Robert
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Budgen, Nick
Hodgson, Robin
Pink, R. Bonner


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Carlisle, Mark
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Carson, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raison, Timothy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rathbone, Tim


Channon, Paul
Hurd, Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Reid, George


Clark, William (Croydon S)
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cockcroft, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cope, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cordle, John H.
Jopling Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crawford, Douglas
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Sir Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sainsbury, Tim


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Drayson, Burnaby
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Dunlop, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
MacCormick, Iain
Spence, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCusker, H.
Sproat, Iain


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Freud, Clement
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)







Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wakeham, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Thompson, George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D.
Walters, Dennis
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Trotter, Neville
Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Tugendhat, Christopher
Watt, Hamish
Younger, Hon George


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wealherill, Bernard



Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wells, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Viggers, Peter
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Jim Lester and


Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Mr. John Corrie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 disagreed to.

Schedule 2

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

The Lords insist on their amendments in page 81, to leave out lines 19 to 30; page 82, line 12; and page 82, line 42, for which insistence they assign the following Reason:

Because it is considered to be in the best interests of the ship-repairing industry that the companies referred to in the said amendments should not be nationalised.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth insist upon its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendments [Mr. Frank R. White.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 278.

Division No. 421.]
AYES
[8.6 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hatton, Frank


Ashley, Jack
Davidson, Arthur
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Horam, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Deakins, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bates, Alf
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bean, R. E.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Huckileld, Les


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hunter, Adam


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Boardman, H.
Dunn, James A.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunnelt, Jack
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Edwards, Robert (Wohr SE)
Janner, Greville


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
John, Brynmor


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Buchanan, Richard
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kaufman, Gerald


Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon &amp; P)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Kelley, Richard


Campbell, Ian
Flannery, Martin
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Lambie, David


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Lamborn, Harry


Carter, Ray
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamond, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Castle, RT Hon Barbara
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitler, Ted


Clemitson, Ivor
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lee, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cohen, Stanley
George, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Dr John
Lipton, Marcus


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ginsburg, David
Litterick, Tom


Concannon, J. D.
Golding, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard
Gould, Bryan
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gourlay, Harry
Luard, Evan


Corbett, Robin
Graham, Ted
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cowans, Many
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Grocott, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cronin, John
Hardy, Peter
McElhone, Frank


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Harper, Joseph
McGuire, Michael (Ince)




MacKenzie, Gregor
Pendry, Tom
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Mackintosh, John P.
Perry, Ernest
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Maclennan, Robert
Phipps, Dr Colin
Swain, Thomas


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McNamara, Kevin
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Madden, Max
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Magee, Bryan
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Ron (Sristol MW)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mahon, Simon
Richardson, Miss Joe
Tierney, Sydney


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanion)
Tinn, James


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tomlinson, John


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tonvey, Tom


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Urwin, T. W.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Meacher, Michael
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mendelson, John
Roper, John
Watkins, David


Mikardo, Ian
Rose, Paul B.
Watklnson, John


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Weetch, Ken


Miller, Or M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rowlands, Ted
Weltzman, David


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Ryman, John
Wellbeloved, Janes


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sandelson, Neville
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Selby, Harry
Whitehead, Phillip


Moyle, Roland
Shaw, Arnold (Illford South)
Whitlock. William


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Newens, Stanley
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Noble, Mike
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv ME)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


O'Halloran, Michael
Sillars, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Ovenden, John
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton E)


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie



Park, George
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parker, John
Stoddart, David
Mr. Peter Snape and


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger
Mr. Joseph Ashton.


Pavitt, Laurie
Strang, Gavin





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fry, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Alison, Michael
Clegg, Walter
Gardiner, George (Relgate)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cockcroft, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Sparthorne)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Awdry, Daniel
Cope, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cordle, John H.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Kenneth
Cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Banks, Robert
Corrle, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Beith, A. J.
Costain, A. P.
Gorst, John


Bell, Roneld
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Crawford, Douglas
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Critchley, Julian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Hamlsh


Biffen, John
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Grieve, Percy


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Griffiths, Eldon


Blaker, Peter
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Body, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Drayson, Burnaby
Gryils, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hall, Sir John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dunlop, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliott, Sir William
Hennam, John


Brittan, Leon
Emery, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hastings, Stephen


Brotherton, Michael
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Havers, Sir Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Beth)
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hayhoe, Barney


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fair grieve, Russell
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Buck, Antony
Farr, John
Henderson, Douglas


Budgen, Nick
Fell, Anthony
Heseitine, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Higgins, Terence L.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hodgson, Robin


Carlisle, Mark
Fookes, Miss Janet
Holland, Phillp


Carson, John
For man, Nigel
Hordern, Peter


Chatter, Mrs Lynda
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Channon, Paul
Fox, Marcus
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Churchill, W. S.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Atan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Freud, Clement
Hunt, John (Bromley)







Hurd, Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
Sims, Roger


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sinclair, Sir George


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Skeel, T. H. H.


James, David
Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dt'd)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Speed, Keith


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Spence, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mudd, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nelson, Anthony
Sproal, Iain


Jopling Michael
Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Newton, Tony
Stanley, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Kilfedder, James
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchtn)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Tapsell, Peter


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Knox, David
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lamont, Norman
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tebbit, Norman


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Penhaligon, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lalham, Michael (Melton)
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lawrence, Ivan
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lawson, Nigel
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Thompson, George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Lloyd, Ian
Prior, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Loveridge, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ralson, Timothy
Tugendhat, Christopher


MacCormick, Iain
Rathbone, Tim
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McCrindie, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McCusker, H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Viggers, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Reid, George
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


MacGregor, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Madel, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Warren, Kenneth


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Watt, Hamish


Mates, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wealherill, Bernard


Mather, Card
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wells, John


Maude, Angus
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Welsh, Andrew


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mawby, Ray
Rosl, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mayhew, Patrick
Sainsbury, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Meyer, Sir Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Scott, Nicholas
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Mills, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Younger, Hon George


Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)



Molloy, William
Shepherd, Colin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molyneaux, James
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


Monro, Hector
Silvester, Fred
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Lords amendments, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [8th November], proceeded to put forthwith the Questions specified in that Order.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: No. 2, in page 21, line 40, leave out "Part I" and insert "paragraph 1, 3 or 4".

No. 3, in page 21, line 41, leave out "fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule" and insert—

"(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and
(b) fulfilled the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being for the purposes of that

paragraph shipbuilding companies manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines or training companies,".

No. 4, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the shiprepairing industry vesting date all securities of the companies which on that date were known by the names specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act, being the companies other than any excepted company which on that date—

(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and
(b) fulfilled the condition specified in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of that paragraph

shall, by virtue of this section, vest in British Shipbuilders free from all trusts and incumbrances".

No. 5, in page 77, line 15, after "Shipbuilders", insert—
by virtue of section 19(2) of this Act".

No. 6, in page 77, line 16, at end insert
and
(c) in relation to a company which becomes, or would but for the provisions of section 27 of this Act become, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Shipbuilders by virtue of section 19(2A) of this Act, the shiprepairing industry vesting date;".

No. 7, in page 77, line 34, at end insert—
'shiprepairing industry vesting date' means such date not less than 3 nor more than 6 months after the passing of this Act as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify for the purposes of section 19(2A) of this Act;".

No. 8, in page 80, line 44, at beginning insert—
1. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being shipbuilding companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".

No. 9, in page 81, line 18, at end insert—
2. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2A) above as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of paragaph 5 below are—".

No. 10, in page 81, line 31, at end insert—
3. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".

No. 11, in page 82, line 1, at end insert—
4. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above, as being training companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—".—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Motion made, and Question,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That Mr. Michael Heseltine, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Tom King, Mr. Tom Pendry be Members of the Committee.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That three be the quorum.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

New Clause A

RESTRICTIONS ON EVIDENCE AT TRIALS FOR RAPE ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out Clause 2 and insert—
A.—(1) If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty, then, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant.
(2) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application made to him in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked.
(3) In subsection (1) of this section "complainant" means a woman upon whom, in a charge for a rape offence to which the trial in question relates, it is alleged that rape was committed, attempted or proposed.
(4) Nothing in this section authorises evidence to be adduced or a question to be asked which cannot be adduced or asked apart from this section.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Mr. Corbett: These amendments, which were moved by the Government on Third Reading in another place, are designed to meet the comments made in both this House and another place on the need to simplify Clause 2. It had been criticised in both places as being difficult to follow and rather tortuous in its construction.
On Report, my hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook in this House to see whether something could be done to reduce the complexities of Clause 2, but this was unable to be done before Third Reading. Since then we have heard the views and received the advice of noble


and learned Lords with practical experience of dealing with rape cases. I am glad to be able to tell the House that they are content with the amendments which I am now commending to the House.
The clause, as hon. Members will see, retains the important test in the Heilbron Group's recommendation—namely, that prior leave of the judge in the absence of the jury must be obtained before questions can be asked in cross-examination or evidence can be adduced by or on behalf of the defendant about the complainant's sexual experience with any man other than the defendant. I am pleased to tell the House that the sponsors of the Bill accept the need for the replacement of Clause 2 in the terms of the amendment.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is remarkable to hear, for once, about the experience of their Lordships. It is also remarkable that we should actually have the Government asking us to accept a Lords amendment. We have been through the Race Relations Bill on which every amendment worthy of consideration from another place was reversed by the Government. We found yesterday that Lords amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, many of which were worthy of mature consideration in this Chamber, were reversed. Yet, in this case we hear in the dulcet tones of the promoter of this Bill—the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett)—that the Government agree with another place today and, therefore, it is in their wisdom that we should accept it in its entirety.
The new clause is an immeasurable improvement. I have hardly ever seen any clause which ran to two pages which was so confused or obtuse and which would have made it so impossible for any jury to have understood the position, let alone for any judge to have been able to sum it up with any clarity and leave it to the jury to decide, as the original Clause 2. It would have led to unfairness, confusion and the gravest injustice.
This amendment, to large extent, carries out many of the suggestions and observations which were made by the Opposition at earlier stages. We invited

the Government to take away Clause 2 and to produce a new clause. To the extent that has been done in another place, it is certainly a great improvement on the previous position. Nevertheless, there are one or two aspects which still leave a great deal to be desired.
The first aspect is extremely wise and we pressed it with the acceptance of many Labour supporters, such as those who were prepared to attend, who were very few in number. Subsection (2) provides that the judge shall not give leave in pursuance of this section for any evidence or question relating to the sexual experience of the complainant to be given except in the absence of the jury. It is plainly right to invite the whole of this matter to be dealt with as in practice it is so often dealt with in criminal cases—namely, that the application with regard to evidence which may be of a controversial nature should take place in the absence of the jury. I am sure that my hon. Friends would unanimously agree with that proposition.
Secondly, it is right that the judge should give leave only if he is satisfied of a certain proposition. However, the proposition suggested imposes a burden of proof which is against the accused. It suggests that the judge must be satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant to allow the evidence to be adduced. For example, he would have to be satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant to adduce any evidence that the complainant was a prostitute or a woman of thoroughly loose morals who would be prepared to go to bed with any man perhaps if she were under the influence of alcohol or for the sake of money.
The burden of proof is thus thrown on the defendant, and defendant's counsel appearing in a rape trial, to satisfy the judge that it would be unfair to him. That is contrary to the principles of natural justice which have obtained in this country for many centuries. The burden of proof has always lain upon the Crown throughout to establish that it will not be unfair to the defendant.
I am surprised that the other place, with all the experience it is suggested that it has in these matters, should have put forward something which overturns that burden and places the burden upon the defendant. I believe that is unfair to the defence.
I want to say what I believe would have been the right words to have inserted, and which would be acceptable to the juries of the country, the judges and all those right across the hemisphere of the world who think so highly of the principles of justice in this country. It should read as follows:
On such an application the judge shall give leave only, and only, if, he is satisfied that it would be relevant in all the circumstances of the case put forward by the defendant that he should allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked.
The issue is whether it is properly relevant to the case put forward by the defendant. That case can vary in an immense variety of circumstances.
I agree that we needed a change. I agree that under the present law a woman's character and conduct might have been unreasonably impugned, but the test is whether it is directly relevant to the proper case being put forward by the defendant. The test is one of relevance. It is whether it is reasonably relevant in all the circumstances to the proper case put forward by the defendant. I would therefore have liked to see the Lords amendment amended in the way that I have suggested.
Nevertheless, the Bill has been through the House and Committee and has come before the House again for Report and Third Reading. It has had a fair consideration in another place. Bearing in mind all of those facts, it seems that this has crept into an amendment which, frankly, I would rather not have seen. However, I have no doubt that the amendment will be agreed to. But it may well be found that injustice will occur in some cases for judges will have to take a very hard view of their attitudes whether this is unfair to the defendant.
8.30 p.m.
It is of the greatest importance that judges bear these views in mind for cases will otherwise arise where, in an endeavour to seek a fair balance between the complainant and the defendant in a rape case, it will be exceptionally difficult to arrive at the correct interpretation of the facts. We may find that in endeavouring to do justice to the woman we end up by doing injustice to the man. That is a possible danger, although

the new clause is an immense improvement on the previous position.
In Clause 1 we have defined matters which very much identify the existing law. We have also dealt with the question of the cloak of anonymity—an important factor to the women of this country and to the men, too. In those circumstances I myself would not be prepared, in isolation, to vote against the new clause although I would have preferred to see it amended in the manner that I have indicated.

Mr. John Lee: Not for the first time I find myself not in entire agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). In many ways this has been a long, rather vexing and troublesome Bill. It would be idle to pretend that I am satisfied with the general philosophy behind it. I shall not detain the House for long nor shall I seek to go over ground which lies outside the scope of the amendments that we are now discussing.
There can be no doubt that compared with the long-winded and tortuous wording of Clause 2, as it left this House, what we now have has the considerable advantage of brevity. It also has the considerable advantage of clarity.
I am bound to echo the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West that it leaves at large the question of the burden of proof in the resolution of the issue before the court. With the sole important exception of insanity—there are one or two other technical exceptions relating to forgery and coinage, which do not matter—the burden lies on the Crown throughout. Whatever twists and turns a criminal trial may take, once the issue is raised and made clear it is to the Crown that one looks to prove or disprove a matter in question. In other words, it is for the Crown all along to bear the heat and burden of the day.
To the extent that the new clause clearly fails to support that principle it is open to a considerable measure of criticism. It is not put completely the other way. It is left at large. That leads me to a comment which in practice may resolve the problem or considerably reduce the risk of injustice.
Nowhere in the Bill is there laid down anything to guide the judge on the way


in which an application to question the relationship of a prosecutrix with regard to third parties should be evaluated. I tentatively assume that when that issue is raised there will have to be a trial within a trial. It will be open to the defence—and the defence should be able to insist upon it—that where it is sought on behalf of a defendant to cross-examine a woman as to her relations with other persons, or to raise some other issue of that kind which the Bill seeks as a generality to exclude, in the absence of the jury to cross-examine the witness on the lines along which he will seek to cross-examine the witness before the jury, and also to aduce such evidence as may be necessary by calling his client or any other witness to establish that it would be unfair for such matters to be withheld from the jury. The Bill is silent on that.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, with whom I have had several talks about this. To an extent he has been able to allay some of my fears. I have had to address myself to the fact that this procedure of a trial within a trial, well-known to criminal lawyers, is not enshrined in statute. It is a practice that is commonly pursued when, for example, one seeks to challenge some admission or confession on the ground that it had been improperly obtained. Sometimes, but not invariably, these matters are resolved by argument and advocacy. More often than not, the practice is for the jury to withdraw and for the issue to be canvassed in the presence of the judge alone. Evidence is adduced on both sides, the Crown tenders its witness, the defence gives evidence and calls evidence and addresses are made to the judge before the matter is resolved.
That is not in the Bill. I appreciate that as it is a matter of practice rather than statutory law or subsidiary legislation it would be somewhat incongruous if we were to embody the trial within the trial procedure statutorily in this piece of legislation when it is not statutorily embodied in legislation that appertains to the generality of criminal trials. My hope is that people in exalted places will consult, and that we shall have from the appropriate quarters—I

apprehend the Lord Chief Justice—some practice direction that will be of guidance to the courts when these matters are put to the test.
I cannot claim to be wholly satisfied with what has happened. I would prefer the burden to be placed unambiguously upon the Crown to prove that it would not be unfair to exclude evidence, but the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) seem unable to concede that. The provision as it has come from the Lords is an improvement and goes some way to reducing the risk of injustice. Therefore, in the circumstances, I am prepared to accept it, although not perhaps with enthusiasm.
It has been said more than once on this Bill that in rape offences risks of injustice are great. In the nature of rape offences, it is obvious that one cannot easily look for corroborative evidence. Even in these permissive and avant-garde days people do not normally have sexual intercourse, whether consensual or otherwise, in public. Therefore, it is not likely that there will be bystanders who will be able to give testimony to back that of a prosecutrix on the question whether she consented. Therefore, generally speaking, the corroborative evidence is medical in character and is sometimes to be found from the demeanour of the parties, but is often of a fairly diminutive character.
The law on rape is an area in which there will always be a high risk of injustice occurring. I hope that when the courts come to apply this law, if the Bill is enacted, as now seems inevitable, they will bear in mind that the overriding consideration must be that the Crown should prove its case. I do not think that it is the intention of the sponsors to reverse the burden of proof or to overturn a part of the criminal law which has been in existence since 1935, and in some circumstances even earlier.
I wish that these matters had been stated more clearly in the Bill. I still have considerable misgivings about this matter, but I am grateful that something has been done to rescue a situation, the results of which otherwise might have been little short of disastrous.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I think it can be said that I am responsible for this Bill because about a year ago I introduced a Ten-Minute Rule Bill on the subject. However, I have come to the conclusion that we do not need a Bill on this matter. All that the judge needs to do—and I occasionally sit as a recorder—is to say to a jury "In rape cases you must look for corroboration." That is a most important consideration. It does not need a Bill to underline it.
I introduced my Ten-Minute Rule Bill because I felt that something should be done about the situation following a difficult case that occurred in Norfolk. We must look at these matters from a common sense view. Juries must be told, "You must have corroboration, and you must think carefully about the evidence." I repeat that we do not need a Bill to cover the situation. The view may be put in court, "Rape is easy, my Lord."
I do not think we need the Bill. It is a lot of nonsense. If judges proceed on the basis that there must be corroboration, that will meet the need. That is why I oppose the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton): I give this amendment a quarter-hearted welcome, and that is being generous on the side of the sponsors of the Bill. Origin ally, I had two objections. I thought that the whole idea of inhibiting cross-examination might lead to injustice and the conviction of more innocent people than would be acceptable to society— and on that I have not changed my mind.
My second objection was that the Bill was absurdly complex. It raised a number of issues, any one of which could have given rise to grounds of appeal, a waste of public time and money, unnecessarily putting money into lawyers' pockets and striking unnecessary terror into the hearts of those wrongly accused of rape. On that aspect, some good has been done.
The original Clause 2 has been simplified, and that is a very substantial improvement, but it is practically the only good thing about the amendment. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend

the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) that the test which a judge should use is relevance, not unfairness. The test of relevance was originally put into the Bill by the noble and extremely experienced legal Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in another place. That was for the good reason that, in the normal course of our criminal judicial approach to the ancillary questions in a criminal trial, a judge must consider whether evidence is relevant. Our system protects the judge, as far as is reasonably possible, from having to come to a decision on the merits of the case or some ancillary part of it.
It came naturally to a very experienced judge to suggest that it would be best for judges to apply the test whether such cross-examination was relevant. Once a judge has ruled that it is relevant, it is for the jury to decide whether the cross-examination is fair and true in its suggestions, and to judge the case accordingly.
However, between the Committee stage of the Bill in another place on 4th November and today, the test has been changed back to one of unfairness. It would be a waste of time to dilate longer on this point, so I say only that I would prefer to see the established criminal judicial test applied here rather than the burden placed on the judge to be subjective and judge the issue on its merits.
That leaves me with the all-important fear that I have about the amendment. Unnecessary time would be taken in my reiterating it. Not all the learned and experienced lawyers concerned with the Bill have shared my view by any means, and therefore I must bow to the ineviability of it.
There are restraints upon members of the legal profession in regard to doing anything that is improper. If they are not already inborn in a defendant's lawyer, they will have been trained into him. If they are not trained into him, these matters will be watched over by the judge in the case. The fact nevertheless remains that if the defendant's lawyer is unable to draw attention to a woman's past, an injustice may very well result.
As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, a woman with a past can, of course, be the victim of rape, but she is less likely to be the victim of rape than your maiden


aunt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or a respectable married woman, or a young virgin. My fear is that a jury may very well wish it had come to a different conclusion if, having brought in a verdict of guilty, it subsequently discovers or is told that the lady concerned has been loose at some stage in the past.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I believe that one eminent lawyer has said that he has never yet lost a rape case when appearing for a defendant who pleaded not guilty. Will the hon. Member agree that the dice are already fairly heavily loaded in favour of the defendant in such a case?

Mr. Lawrence: If the dice are loaded in favour of the defence, it is only to make sure that no innocent people are ever convicted. It is a very difficult issue, which has always to be considered in cases of rape. I do not know to which learned leader the hon. Gentleman was referring. There was a speech in the House of Lords by a learned junior, who said that that was his experience. But I am surrounded here by very distinguished, eminent and learned leaders, and if I were to add my experience to theirs, I think that none of us could boast—if that is the right word—that we have always been successful in defending clients on charges of rape.
I think, with great respect to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), that the observation to which he referred was a very subjective and perhaps a very limited one for someone to have made. We have to be particularly careful in these cases. It is not just my view: it has been a traditional view in the operation of the criminal courts that in cases involving sexual offences—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) will seat himself it will be easier for the House to conduct its proceedings.

Mr. Lawrence: I had quite a shock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on seeing that most conservative of my hon. and learned Friends, the Member for Ruislip-North wood (Mr. Crowder), cross the Floor. It

has almost rendered me speechless, but —as hon. Members will see—not quite.
I have come to the conclusion that, provided the clause as now amended is used with discretion and with good sound common sense by our judiciary, and by the practitioners in the courts—I seem to have heard myself saying this on many ocasions in regards to similar sorts of Bills in this Session—it may not make too much difference. I can only hope that that will be so, and that innocent persons will not in future be convicted of rape who, under the existing law, would have been acquitted.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): It will probably be as well if at this stage I indicate the Government's attitude.
First, I want to deal with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) about what he paraphrased as " a trial within a trial ". As he said, that is not provided for in any statute; it has been developed by judicial practice. I agree with him that the matter is left at large. There is nothing to forbid it in the Bill as drafted. It will be left to the judges, and I have no doubt that in practice they will evolve that which is necessary to see that justice is done.
A number of hon. Members have said that the Bill is not necessary. That is not a view shared by the noble Lords, especially Lord Hailsham. The suggestion has been made that the clause as drafted does not meet the original comments of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. I might point out that when the Government's amendment appeared on the Notice Paper the noble Lord wrote to express his support for it and to apologise for not being able to be present when it was discussed, when, he said, he would have expressed public support for the clause as drafted.
With that assurance, I think that the House can accept the Lords amendment quite safely.

Mr. Edward Gardner: The acquittal of a man charged with rape can have the deplorable effect of damaging or even destroying the reputation of a woman complainant. Although she herself is not on trial, she may appear to be guilty. This Bill


not only gives a woman in proper cases the protection of anonymity but, by the clause, seeks to save her from the distress of irrelevant evidence and cross-examination about her sexual experience with someone other than the accused.
This clause, like others in the Bill, was inspired by the excellent report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Heilbron.
The new clause has a simplicity and a clarity which the original clause lacked. It gives the trial judge a discretion about what shall be allowed by way of evidence and cross-examination concerning the past sexual history of the complainant.
For these reasons, the Opposition support the clause. Although we have certain reservations, which were expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), about the dangers that could be implicit in a change in the law, we think that the clause is a considerable improvement on the old one. I am sure that the House will feel itself indebted not only to the Advisory Group but also to their Lord ships in another place for the way in which the clause has achieved the framing of the recommendations of the report in language which we hope will be useful and clear guidance to the courts.

Mr. Lee: It will be of assistance, as it were, behind the scenes, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether he shares my view about "a trial within a trial" as a way of evaluating fairness.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Gardner: I do have sympathy with that point of view. Also, I think that the view put forward by the Minister—that this is a procedure that can grow with practice, just as other procedures which we know well in our courts have developed—will quieten most of the anxieties that would otherwise be felt.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Corbett and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes,Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 4

ANONYMITY OF COMPLAINANTS IN RAPE CASES, ETC.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment is Lords Amendment No. 6, with which we may take Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Lords amendment:No. 6, in page 6, line 22, at end insert:
; or
(d) a bill of indictment charging him with a rape offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence.".

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
These amendments, which arise out of an undertaking given on Report by the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), include in the definition in Clause 4, of the time at which a person is to be regarded as being accused of a rape offence, a reference to voluntary bills of indictment.
The first amendment achieves this purpose by adding to the definition in Clause 4(6) a new paragraph (d) relating to bills of indictment, and the two other amendments are consequential changes in Clause 5(1)(e) and Clause 6(6)(a).

Mr. Lawrence: My intervention is almost in the form of a question. 1 cannot see for the life of me why it is necessary to have Amendment No. 6, which inserts in the Bill for the fourth time words saying that a person has been accused of rape, when a bill of indictment charging him with the rape offence is preferred before a court in which he may be indicted for the offence. Surely that is a situation that is swallowed up in paragraph (b), and a person cannot appear before a court charged with a rape offence unless there has been a committal, an information or a bill of indictment.
This seems to be another example of the sort of verbiage that we keep churning out in this place and putting into Bills to add absolutely meaningless and useless words.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Michael McGuire: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the procedures of the House for the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), who on the last occasion could not find a Teller, to abuse and waste the time of hon. Members? Do you not have powers to collect the voices and to give the Question to the Ayes in this case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no power to do anything until I have collected the voices, which indeed I did on the last occasion.

Mr. Crowder: I naturally accede—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member must be seated and covered if he wishes to speak We are in the process of a Division.

Mr. Crowder: (seated and covered): Naturally, I withdraw.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Foot be added to the Committee of Privileges for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this be a Standing Order of the House. —[Mr. Coleman.]

COURTAULDS LIMITED (SKELMERSDALE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I am indeed pleased that through good fortune—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members who do not wish to hear the hon. Gentleman in his Adjournment debate kindly leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. McGuire: Due to good fortune, we have one hour and 20 minutes in which to debate this matter instead of the traditional half an hour. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on the

last occasion I lost this debate due to a procedural device. That was a fortnight ago. Tonight I know that some of my hon. Friends will also wish to speak in the debate.
The announcement on 27th October that Courtaulds intended to close its Skelmersdale factory, which employs 1,000 people, came as a complete shock to the people of the new town. It came as a shock because, when the Prime Minister visited Skelmersdale on 3rd September, he met not only me but local members of the Labour Party. We put to him the suggestion that the Government should help to reduce our already too high unemployment rate in Skelmersdale and our fear about some of the firms in the textile industry, particularly Courtaulds.
It is not just Courtaulds, which employs 1,000 people, which is affected. There are also the gravest problems in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), which also suffers from the threat of steel unemployment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): Yes, indeed.

Mr. McGuire: The reason given to me for the closure of one of the factories in my hon. Friend's constituency is that the market for tights had gone. Harwood Hosiery in Skelmersdale, which employs about 600 people, also manufactures tights, so I have fears about that factory as well. But what I am discussing is the proposed closure of Courtaulds.
We explained to the Prime Minister our fears about the delicate imbalance in the town and above all in the textile industry. The Prime Minister has unwittingly been drawn into this. He wrote me a letter following his visit in which he assured me that he had made inquiries, presumably of Courtaulds—presumably someone checked it out—and he was pleased to be able to tell me, and I told my constituents, that there was no fear, certainly in the immediate future, of the Skelmersdale factory closing.
I made inquiries when I heard on the bush telegraph of an announcement to be made on Friday 22nd October about the closure of Courtaulds factories in Northern Ireland and other parts of the country, particularly Hint. When I was told that


the Skelmersdale factory would not be on that list I was reassured. I thought that the Prime Minister had really checked it out and the information was solid. I was sorry for anyone who would lose his job, but I felt a little easier about the factory in my own constituency.
Hon. Members can imagine how I felt when, only six or seven weeks after the Prime Minister's visit, this announcement was made. It was a bombshell, because this area had earlier suffered its cruellest blow so far, with the closure of the Thorn colour tube factory, which had employed about 1,400 people. This proposal, on top of that, makes nonsense of our claim that new towns are somewhere where the best things in life will happen, with the key being planned employment. It makes our regional policy laughable.
The statistics for Skelmersdale can be misleading. People may therefore think that I am over-egging the pudding when I quote our statistics of unemployment. The official statistic is about 13 per cent, unemployment. That is horrific, but is considered not too bad for Merseyside—although it is well above the national average. But it is diluted. We are in the Ormskirk-Skelmersdale travel-to-work area. I can prove how false these figures are.
The total insured population—men, women, boys and girls—in the two towns is roughly 31,000. According to an official survey of last June, the total insured population of Skelmersdale New Town is 16,000.
National statistics show that 37 out of every 100 workers are women. In Skelmersdale there are about 16,000 workers and potential workers. About 10,000 of them are men, and approximately 6,000 are women. There are 1,616 men, 194 boys, 549 women and 140 girls who are unemployed. That is a total of nearly 2,500, about 15 per cent, of the working population. If Courtaulds close—I stress " if ", because it is my job and that of the Government to stop that from happening—about 500 men out of the 1,000 employed there will be added to the list of the unemployed. That will give a total of 2,116 out of the 10,000 male employable population and this will give us a male unemployment rate of 21·2 per cent. My figures are incontrovertible. I use them because the

official figures do not represent the true picture.
I am pleased to see that both the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment are in the Chamber. It shows the importance that is attached to the debate. Travel-to-work figures should not be used. The true figures for Skelmersdale are diluted because Ormskirk, with a 15,000 insured population, has only 758 unemployed. It is because of that figure that the true situation in Skelmersdale is not revealed. That is dangerous, because it stops Governments from spotlighting the problem.
My purpose in raising this subject is to try to prevent the closure, which will affect my constituency so badly. I want to hear the Minister tell the House tonight that he will institute an inquiry into Courtaulds' affairs, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I am particularly anxious about Courtaulds, Skelmersdale. They will appreciate that not all the factories are the same. The Flint factory, and others, did not receive the Government grants that enabled Courtaulds, Skelmersdale, to start. It is not, therefore, on all fours with the other factories.
There are many reasons for an inquiry. First, we must allay the disquiet about the many millions of pounds of Government money which has been given to the company legitimately. It is Government policy to encourage firms to go to special development areas. But I do not want to see companies receiving huge sums and then, if they make a loss, heading out towards pastures new with other Government grants with which to set up other factories employing fewer people. One of the features of British industrial life is that the more one invests the fewer jobs are provided, and that is a problem which our Labour Government have got to deal with.
The company was legitimately given huge amounts of public money and now it says " We are very sorry. We shall stay for 90 days more, then we are leaving." Incidentally, Courtauld considers the 90 days to be the consultation period. Thorn got away with giving notice and heading out after a couple of weeks, because the Labour Party's Employment Protection Act did not apply. The people of Skelmersdale are at least grateful


for that Act. Without it the company could have legged it out and we should have had all the problems of people not receiving any wages, apart from redundancy pay, after a few weeks.
What Courtaulds has said about the consultation period does not show enlightened management. It says that it has carried out a great deal of consultation about the factory and has come to the end of its tether. To think that the 90 days constitute the consultation period shows an abysmal understanding of sound industrial relations policy. There is enough public disquiet for the Government to say "We must have a public inquiry".
Apart from the public disquiet, which I have referred to, there are three reasons why I would like an inquiry into the company's statement of why it intends to close what, after all, was in 1968 the most modern textile factory in Europe. After only eight years there is talk of closing it. The first strand of that statement is about losses. Sir Arthur Knight has said that the company had made continuing losses in Skelmersdale. The figure of about £6 million has been mentioned. The second strand was about the import problem.
The company has faced, and still faces, tremendous import penetration problems. Some of my hon. Friends wish to develop that theme, and I shall not steal their thunder. The lightweight polyester fibre manufactured at the factory is used mainly for shirts and lingerie. Courtaulds has said that import penetration in the fibre has gone from 40 per cent, to 60 per cent, almost in the twinkling of an eye. It might be possible to prove at an inquiry that the Government could help keep the factory open with some form of aid or import controls. The price that Courtaulds could obtain was unrealistic, because of price control and probably because of the import competition.
Those are two factors I should like an inquiry to consider. The third is an allegation of bad industrial relations. As far as I know, this is the only factory to be closed that has been the subject of that kind of announcement. The company uses the euphemistic phrase "not being able to attain the manning levels we

should have liked to make the factory efficient".
Union representatives taking part in the lobby yesterday begged me to secure the inquiry, because they were the only people to have been labelled in that way. They said that it put a question mark over their loyalty, honesty and work rate, and might irreparably damage the new town, so that employers would fight shy of going there. They told me " We have nothing to hide. We want a full inquiry. If we can concentrate on that, it will do us good." I hope that all hon. Members will give their full support to an inquiry for those very good reasons.
I hope that the inquiry will take place immediately. We have already seen 21 days slip by, and if it is to be thorough even the 90 days may not be sufficient. We are talking about 60-odd days because 21 days have already elapsed. It will probably take a few days to set up the inquiry, and I hope that there will be a guarantee that, if necessary, the 90 days will be extended so that the inquiry may be completed. After all, it may be the key to keeping the factory open. It would be nonsense for the 90 days to expire and for someone to say at the end of that period "We could have kept it open because we have found a solution"
The proposed closure calls into question the Government's new town strategy. The closure of Thorns and this proposed closure must mean that a question mark hangs over Harwoods, which I believe is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Courtaulds. It seems that the bottom has fallen out of the market, as two factories making tights have already closed. This background calls into question the fragile imbalance in Skelmersdale New Town—in other words, our industries are far too vulnerable.
I know that it is easy to speak with hindsight, but if about 1,800 jobs are put into textiles and about 1,800 into the television tube industry—that would have been the figure if Thorns had come to full fruition—with no import controls and a free and open market and it is attempted to build the prosperity of a new town on those industries, it is clear that the Government's strategy was either badly planned or not planned at all.
Skelmersdale is now faced with terrifying unemployment figures. I emphasise


that it enjoys the highest form of grant aid that is available in Great Britain—namely, special development status. Apart from setting up the inquiry machinery as soon as possible within the 60-odd days that are left, I hope that the Government, when they decide to help us, will put in industries that will be able to survive the first sneeze of an economic cold. Skelmersdale's industry has not been able to do that so far.
At present, Skelmersdale is getting a great deal of publicity. I wish that I did not have to raise the town's problems, but I have only to mention Skelmersdale and the television crews are on the scene. However, when the town is mentioned on television, it is bad news. That seems to be inevitable. It is rather like the cartoonist's caricature of a Frenchman. He is always shown to be wearing a beret, a thin moustache, and a leering smile, while chasing a blonde. 1 hope that I am not hurting the susceptibilities of any French people.
The point I am making is that Skelmersdale news is bad news. Of course, the camera crews are always willing to be in the Merseyside area. They consider it a natural place for their presence, as the people are fairly loquacious, spontaneous and never stuck for a reply. It provides good television coverage, but that does not help Skelmersdale or Merseyside generally. I should prefer not to be raising this matter tonight, but if I were not it would be a dereliction of duty. When the Government bring industry to Skelmersdale, I hope that they will bring the sort that will stand the first sneeze and cough of any economic cold.
When the Government decided to rescue Leylands, I supported their decision. Recently, the Prime Minister said that if the company had not been rescued the West Midlands would have been a desert. We need a bit of help to stop Skelmersdale becoming a desert. After all, in a way it is our money that is involved. I hope that the Government will encourage by all means possible—I know that they are doing so behind the scenes—the introduction of a Leyland component factory. Skelmersdale is able to offer a suitable site. Indeed, there is everything in our favour. There are roads and an empty factory.
The people of Skelmersdale are demoralised. These events rocked them back. In previous Adjournment debates I have mentioned the plight of the new town. But all we get are kind answers and no action. We need to give these people a vote of confidence. It would take time, and it would not solve our unemployment problem, but it would help if we were to receive the news soon that the Government will give us one of the "Hardman" Government Departments. We have been badly treated in the North-West and shockingly treated in Skelmersdale. We are the biggest of the new towns, but we have not been given the smallest of Government offices. They are to meet a national need, and Skelmersdale is entitled to its share.
Let me turn now to devolution. Whatever plans the Government may have in that respect, we shall have the power and capacity to upset them if the North-West continues to get such a bad deal. Wales has a population of 2·75 million, and under the Government disposal programme it will get 660 jobs per 100,000 of population. In the North-West we should get all that we are entitled to, but already people behind the scenes are saying that we shall get too much, even though our figure will be only 150 per 100,000. We have been badly done by and we need a better share of that cake. I hope that we have an announcement soon.
We need an announcement to give hope to our bright young boys and girls and to give an element of economic stability and work for our unemployed building workers. Why can we not have an announcement for the advancement of the hospital? It should have been built, in any case. We are in a deprived area that has been short-changed over the years. That has been recognised by the historical deficiency grant which was recently awarded to the North-West Regional Health Authority.
Skelmersdale was to have been a planned oasis of employment, but now we are to lose the factories that we already have. There are no skillcentres or training facilities in the town. Few of the employers has taken on apprentices. Why cannot the Government encourage employers to do that to employ some of the young people who are out of work? Why can they not give us some of these


centres? The jobcentre staff are doing their best, but we just do not have the basic facilities.
The Government's original strategy for Skelmersdale has left it extremely vulnerable. I believe that the Government's regional strategy is too blunt an instrument to help in cases such as Skelmersdale. The situation requires a sharper instrument. We do not complain that the Government's strategy did not work in earlier days. It has worked reasonably well. Areas which once had massive unemployment, however, have now got less than the North-West, which once used to have a neutral rate, just about the national average. But Merseyside suffers from huge pockets of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) will confirm that in Kirkby and Aintree the figures are as bad as, if not worse than, in Skelmersdale.
Skelmersdale was planned. These towns or districts were unplanned. Therefore, the Government's duty to the people of Skelmersdale is more positive than it would be for an unplanned town, albeit with tremendous problems of unemployment. Because we have a blunt instrument of regional policy we are unable to direct resources and aid as quickly as we would wish to Skelmersdale, which would help it.
When the Skelmersdale New Town was designated in 1961, there were many comments about the efficaciousness of the proposal and whether it would succeed. There was the argument that if the Government had given aid to older established industrial towns it would have been better. With the benefit of hindsight, there is a lot in that argument. They could have done more for the people for whom help was intended—the people on Merseyside generally.
Merseyside has five new towns pulling the heart out of it. It is facing big problems now, with what is left behind. The costs are still great, and some of the people have gone. Nevertheless, Skelmersdale New Town went ahead in 1961.
Flowing from that and the Government's advertising, through the development corporation—I say this deliberately—people have been lured to the new town.
New towns are always expensive to live in. They are incredibly difficult to live in with the present unemployment figures. People had bright hopes when they went to Skelmersdale New Town. They were not expecting a new Jerusalem. Ordinary, intelligent people did not believe that they would never be out of work or that they would escape the harsh winds of the economic blizzards which blow from time to time, but they expected better and still expect better of a Labour Government. Their hopes have been cruelly dashed. They have already suffered too many harsh blows. Apart from the need for an inquiry, they want a vote of confidence by this Government. They are making a plea for help.
I am a Labour supporter and proud to be the Labour Member representing Skelmersdale. I often reflect whether it was a good idea for Skelmersdale to be added to the Ince constituency in 1950. Probably it was for my sins. But what we need now is help—and urgently.
I pay tribute to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is on the Front Bench today, along with several of his colleagues. I know that they have a desire to help. I want that desire to be expressed tonight in a concrete form so that the dark clouds over Skelmersdale will be lifted and people will say " The Government will help us. We shall have not only an inquiry but, with the help of the Government, will soon enjoy that better, richer life which lured us to the new town in the first place".

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on a moving and able speech on behalf of his constituents. The points that he made tonight are very strong, and I know that the Minister of State, Department of Industry will take careful note of them.
I wish to deal specifically with the causes of the situation in Skelmersdale and in many other textile areas and perhaps the way out of that situation in future. Unless some dramatic changes are made in Government policy for the textile industry, we shall see other Skelmersdales and other closures of factories in the industry.
It is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter tonight after the


Sexual Offences Bill, because we are discussing the rape of Skelmersdale by a textile company which has cynically manipulated public money for its own ends. For that reason alone there should be an inquiry into the affairs of Courtaulds.
I recall that when we fought the 1974 election the Labour Government were elected on the basis of accountability for the use of public funds. We met Sir Arthur Knight in this House not long ago. It appeared to me that, from a calculation of his figures, Courtaulds over the last three or four years has received £56 million in public funds in one form or another. In those circumstances it seems ridiculous for that company to define the word "consultation" as meaning taking a decision and then announcing it and at the same time saying that whatever consultation so-called takes place there will be no change in its opinions about the future of a number of mills which it had announced would be closed.
I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Ince in his demand for an inquiry. My hon. Friend referred to the Early-Day Motion demanding an inquiry which has now been signed by about 150 hon. Members. I would remind the Minister of State that that demand is not simply as a result of disquiet outside. It is not simply as a result of disquiet in the trade union movement or in the Labour Party outside. Many hon. Members on this side of the House are extremely concerned that any company can receive the vast amounts of public money which have been poured into Courtaulds, it would seem without responsibility.
Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Ince, for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) and for Burnley (Mr. Jones), I visited a new Courtaulds mill at Belmont in Durham. The management was proud to tell us that the mill had cost £12 million, of which £3 million had come from public funds, and that it would provide about 240 jobs.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ince referred to the interests of investment I know that he was referring to the experience we had that day when we saw that magnificent mill costing £12 million—one quarter of which came from public funds—yet providing only about 200 jobs. There can be no justification

whatever for not having an inquiry which the public, the trade unions and a vast number of hon. Members are demanding.
My second point relates to the reasons for this kind of situation developing. 1 know that the chairman of Courtaulds has said that the problem at Skelmersdale was not related to imports. I would say in reply that if we had not had the import problem the Skelmersdale situation would have been different and there would be fewer threats of closures in the textile industry as a whole. While I know that the Minister of State, Department of Industry, is not directly responsible for the trade side of the problem, I hope that he will take this message back to his colleagues in the Department of Trade. I can assure my hon. Friend that when he tells his colleagues what the problem is they will reply "Yes, we have heard it before". They have heard it from these Benches, and from people outside, on many occasions.
It is worth looking at some of the events of the last two years. We were repeatedly told by the Government that the textile situation was being dealt with, that the Multi-Fibre Arrangement would regulate trade in textiles and that this would create a secure home market and a secure situation for the British textile industry.
I liken the MFA Arrangement to a carefully constructed dam the top of which is three feet below the level of the water and as a result of which we have a continuous flood of imports. Let us consider cotton yarn from Portugal. In 1975, 5,800 tons came to Britain. Last year, despite controls, that had risen to 7,800. In 1974 we imported 63 million square metres of woven cloth from Pakistan. One year later, that had risen to 94 million square metres. The number of blouses from India has doubled in a year. In 1974 we took 2½million and in 1975 4½ million. The number of so-called handwoven blouses from India— which tests have shown not to be hand-woven—has increased tenfold in 12 months. In 1974 we took 27 million shirts from Hong Kong; last year we took 43 million. We took 15 million jerseys from Taiwan in 1974 and 18 million last year. We took 1½ million blouses from South Korea in 1974 and a year later 4 million.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year we imported 19,000 shirts from the People's Republic of China and already this year the total is well over 420,000? The Government have not acted. This inevitably will affect the textile industrv. Will the hon. Gentleman press his hon. Friends to do something about it?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman has pressed the Government, and I associate myself with his remarks. It is hardly surprising that the trade gap in textiles is becoming increasingly unreal. In textile products we have a surplus which is rapidly going down. It was £101 million in 1971 and £15 million last year. The trade gap in clothing is disastrous. The deficit in 1971 was £48 million and last year it was £240 million. It is hardly surprising that Courtaulds in Skelmers dale and other areas, and many other textile mills, are facing such enormous problems.
It is essential that the Government should adopt a tough negotiating position when they renegotiate the Multi-Fibre Arrangement with their EEC partners and ultimately with the rest of the world. There are gaping holes in the Arrangement as it has been operating since its inception, not long ago. Thousands of our constituents, particularly in the North-West, have had their livelihoods put at risk or snatched away.
We believe that there should be a new Multi-Fibre Arrangement to replace the present one at the end of 1977. When I say "we" I am speaking not only on behalf of my hon. Friends but also on behalf of the trade unions in the industry, with whom my hon. Friends have remained in close consultation. We think that this is the best way to regulate the trade in textiles.
Some changes are needed. First, there is need for a recession clause. One of our biggest problems in the last 12 months has been that as the home market has dipped, imports have continued and have taken an ever-increasing share of the home market. There has, therefore, been a reduction in the number of jobs. We need a clause to regulate the growth in the level of exports so that when they reach a certain level the growth factor is set aside or existing levels are re-

duced, depending on the state of the home market.
Secondly, we believe that there should be a quota, so that when imports of particular products reach a certain level they can be cut off. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about imports from China.
Thirdly, the procedure for dealing with dumping should be improved and speeded up so that complaints can be dealt with quickly before unemployment occurs.
Fourthly, we want an assurance that an agreement of this kind will continue for at least six years and possibly for 10 years, so that the industry can get on with long-term planning to restore confidence in the industry and so secure investment and make more jobs available.
The problem in competing with low-cost suppliers is that of comparing like with like. It cannot be said that there is fair competition when we are competing with countries whose workers are wage slaves and where there is no form of free trade unionism or free collective bargaining or any form of social security. We believe that we must attach to these negotiations a social clause which will ensure, through an international inspectorate, that the conditions of these workers are improved in such a way as to raise their wage levels so that British workers are able to compete on a fair basis. Unless this happens Government spokesmen will have to make constant appearances in this House to discuss closures similar to that at Skelmersdale We know that 40 per cent, of the labour force at Nelson and Colne and Rochdale is involved in the textile industry—in my constituency the figure is 25 per cent.— and a further 35 per cent, of the work force is concerned with footwear. This Government have the fate of those workers in their hands. We demand that the situation at Skelmersdale must not be repeated.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: We congratulate the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on affording us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I speak on behalf of a significant number of workers in Northern Ireland who are affected by the Courtaulds closures.
Since the announcement of the closure of the Carnmoney factory in my constituency, I have kept in close touch with the management and with the work force, and I know that those concerned have acted in a responsible manner. The workers have recognised that there is a degree of inevitability about what has happened to their factory. Although those workers have undergone a painful experience in an area of high unemployment, they are not despondent and are determined to switch their skills to other openings that may be available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has an even bigger stake in this subject than I have, because he has a number of large Courtaulds undertakings in his constituency. I know that he shares my concern and the concern expressed by Labour Members about the future of the company.
I pay tribute to the company for all it has done in Northern Ireland. As a major undertaking it has breathed new life into the industrial scene of Northern Ireland. We regret this temporary setback, but we recognise that it has occurred through no negligence on the part of the Government, and certainly through no ill will against Northern Ireland. It has happened simply as a result of the economic facts of life.
I assure the House that we on these Benches will co-operate with the company and with Her Majesty's Government. I wish to place on record our appreciation of the work undertaken by the Undersecretary of State for Northern Ireland with his responsibilities for commerce, and also to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland office. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman present for this debate which will have its effects in a Northern Ireland context.
We want to express to the Minister of State the appreciation of all concerned in the man-made fibre industry for the work done by his Department. He will not mind my saying that the Department of Commerce's contribution and intimate grasp of company affairs is unmatched by any Department on this side of the water. That is no criticism of those Departments, but it illustrates the value which is placed on decentralised Government structures in Northern Ireland. I think the Minister of State will agree that,

had not the Department of Commerce machinery been available, his task of helping Northern Ireland companies who were in difficulty would have been very much greater. I want to place on record the appreciation of my hon. Friends for all that the Government have done, particularly in this case.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on the way in which he presented his case. It was a fine example of an honourable Member standing up for his constituents. This is not the first time he has done this. Our minds go back to the unfortunate closure of the Thorn factory in Skelmersdale, when my hon. Friend put up a really magnificent fight. He has used every possible parliamentary opportunity to draw attention to the Courtaulds problem. He made a good case and explained the difficulties in his constituency, but he also widened the debate to include North-West England's textile industry. I am grateful to him for that.
There have been many meetings between trade unionists and the Chairman of Courtaulds and between the Government and the Chairman. There was an excellent meeting in the House of the All-Party Textile Group. Sir Arthur Knight was kind enough to attend—I say this with due respect, because he had no need to come—and answer questions from hon. Members with constituency interests. Sir Arthur understood that when Courtaulds—which has more than 300 centres of employment in this country—has difficulties, repercussions are felt beyond North-West England.
At the meeting of Oldham Metropolitan Council's Industrial Development Committee last week, a report was submitted which showed that although there were to be no direct closures in the Greater Oldham area, a cold fear gripped the hearts of my constituents, because there are Courtauld plants in the town.
The inquiry, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince has correctly called should, if possible, include some reassurance about the future to employees at other Courtaulds plants.
Courtaulds, like other firms in the textile industry, has been making massive investment over the last few years. The


industry has moved from being labour-intensive at the beginning of the century to its position today as the second most capital-intensive industry in this country after the chemical industry.
It is an example of the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince made about investment not necessarily creating jobs, that during this period of massive investment the number of textile jobs in the North-West has fallen to one-tenth of the level of 50 years ago. Nine out of 10 jobs have disappeared. I doubt very much whether there is another industry with such a record, but I am not wholly despondent about it.
One of the things that I like about my constituency is that, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), it is not as dependent on textiles as it once was. The industry is much more diversified, and therefore, in my opinion, employment is much stronger than in an area which depends on one industry.
Coming from Scotland as I do, I can think of many towns which at one time had only one industry. I remember the jute industry in Dundee before the war—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Mr. Lamond: It used to be said that Dundee was entirely dependent on jute, jam and journalism. The result was that unemployment in Dundee was at a very high level. Dundee was given aid even before the war for this reason. The idea is not new.
When Sir Arthur Knight appeared before the committee I thought that he answered the questions put to him in a straightforward and reasonable manner, from the standpoint of someone operating in the market place. Courtaulds, of course, does not take into account the social consequences of closures of this kind. It takes into consideration the losses that have been made in the factory, the possibility of turning them into profit, and so on. I do not blame it for this.
I accept that it works in that atmosphere.
The Government have been trying to inject into the thinking of employers in this country the idea of taking social consequences into account. Based on that concept, the Government have developed a strategy for the regions. Obviously, when we see this sort of unemployment figure in new towns, the strategy has not been working. It is bad enough in areas on Merseyside, where there is an unplanned development of industry. But where it is supposed to be planned, where an area has every advantage that the Government can think of to enable it to develop in a correct way, and still there are closures, the Government must realise that it is time for a radical examination of their development area policy, and perhaps a reorganisation of grants, and so on.
The present policy is a very blunt instrument. I do not want to be disloyal to my own home town—Aberdeen—which is very dear to my heart. I yield to no one in my admiration for that city, but for seven years it has enjoyed full development area status, while having unemployment of under 2 per cent. Dozens, if not hundreds, of firms have flooded into the area, drawn there by the market forces, yet it has persisted in retaining development area status.
When I went to Oldham as a Member it had no development area status. I pay tribute to the Tory Party for making the area an intermediate development area and for recognising the needs of the North-West.
I think that this inquiry is needed and that it should be as wide as possible. I recognise that it cannot possibly encompass an examination of the Government's entire development area policy, but that aspect also should be borne in mind by the members of Government when they are thinking about the problem.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I from the Conservative side congratulate the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on raising this vital subject in the House this evening. He has done the House a service, and I hope that some of what has been said in the debate will be taken on board by the Ministers.
I am delighted that so many leading Government Ministers have been on the Treasury Bench tonight.
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), because he is chairman of the all-party textile group of which I have the honour to be vice-chairman. I think that all parties in the House, through this Committee, have made the strongest recommendation to the Government to persuade them to appreciate the position and the difficulties facing the textile industry at this time.
It is unnecessary for me to pursue that particular matter further tonight, although inevitably the Courtaulds situation and the closure of some of their textile plants is very closely involved in the problems of the textile industry, which is facing unfair competition from the Third World and from the Comecon countries. Skelmersdale, however, is rather a different case.
From the Opposition Benches, I wish to support the request by the hon. Member for Ince for an inquiry. Although an inquiry may be considered by the Minister to be unnecessary, I take the opposite view, because it may bring to the attention of the Government—especially that of the Departments of Industry and Trade—the unique problems being faced by the textile industries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) put forward some powerful arguments. I am sorry that he spoiled the effect of his speech by unnecessarily attacking Courtaulds for what he described as "an abuse" of the grant situation. I do not believe that Courtaulds has abused the grant situation. It went to Skelmersdale, as it has gone to other development areas, in good faith to try to provide much-needed employment. However, the company has encountered insurmountable problems which, after a number of years, have led it to take this very unfortunate decision to close the plant.

Mr. Noble: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the legitimate use of public funds through development area grants and so on in circumstances where companies are not accountable may not perhaps be an abuse but can lead to diffi-

culties of the kind that we see at Skelmersdale?

Mr. Winterton: I think that a large public company such as Courtaulds is particularly accountable to the Government, to the public and to its own employees.
I represent a constituency which has important textile industries. In recent times, Courtaulds has closed two mills in my constituency—the Clarence mill and the Adelphi mill, both in Bollington. Those two mills have provided employment in the village and in my constituency around it for many decades. The company took the decision reluctantly and it tried very hard to provide alternative work in those mills before finally closing them. Unfortunately, it was unable to do so.
I believe that Courtaulds has acted in good faith. I took on board the point which Sir Arthur Knight made with considerable emphasis when he talked to the all-party committee that, by closing these plants, the company was safeguarding the employment of its other 110,000 employees. We must not overlook that vital fact. It would be stupid for Courtaulds to go on pouring money—whether it be Government money provided by the taxpayer or out of company profits—into a plant making huge losses year after year. I think that I quote Sir Arthur Knight correctly when I say that in the last accounting period—I forget whether it was a nine-month or a 12-month period—the plant at Skelmersdale lost almost £900,000. That is a great deal of money.
An inquiry can be useful to the textile industry. It can also be useful to the hon. Member for Ince and to all his constituents whom he represents so well in this House.
In addition to looking at the particular problems of the textile industry, I hope that the Minister will consider what help the EEC regional fund can provide to an area which is facing unique problems because of the closure of two very important industrial plants, with the dire results that it brings to the people of a new town area such as Skelmersdale.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I wish to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Maguire). I attended a meeting in


Liverpool on Friday at which some of his constituents were present, and I know that he reflects the very strong feelings of those workers about the need for a public inquiry.
My hon. Friend was right to raise the problems that the closure of Courtaulds represents for Skelmersdale. What is more, in the wider context of the argument, I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) was right to analyse many of the problems and to project some of the solutions for the textile industry as a whole.
One of the serious points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince was about the very nature of Skelmersdale. It is just a segment of the whole problem which exists in that part of the country. The people of Skelmersdale virtually were sent from Liverpool to this overspill area in anticipation of finding new homes and new employment opportunities for a considerable time to come. They were moving away from an area of persistently high unemployment into a new town which offered all the possibilities of security of employment and a better environment.
This was all part of the grand scheme of depopulating the city of Liverpool in a way which has been going on every since. To the people of Skelmersdale, this planners' dream of ending commuting between that part of Lancashire and Merseyside has ended in a nightmare. Now they are virtually imprisoned in the area with only limited employment opportunities.
The Government should consider the questions raised on a number of occasions about the indivisible problems associated with the depopulation of city centres and the development of new towns. The solution to one will bring the solution to the other. The Front Bench Ministers who are here tonight are well aware of the problems, not only in the context of Skelmersdale but in the context of Merseyside generally. They know about the declining nature of industry in the whole area, and they have given considerable attention to these difficulties.
However, we want to see firm action on these problems. We believe that one of the first things which should be done

about Skelmersdale is the establishment of a public inquiry to examine the correctness or otherwise of Government policy in relation to the provision of finance to industry. While it is quite right that reference should be made primarily to the loss of the Skelmersdale factory, there has been silence on the question of the general profitability of Courtaulds. I am not arguing that green pastures should develop overnight, but [ do want to see a firm commitment that these people, who went to Skelmersdale in good faith, will be treated decently. Opportunities for employment should be retained in the area so that it does not continue on the present downward spiral.

10.14 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on getting this matter debated. It is an issue of great concern to hon. Members in all parts of this House. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the moving and clear way in which he pressed the case on behalf of his constituents and those of other hon. Members affected by closures in other factories.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will understand if I do not deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. However, I am sure that the Minister of State for the Northern Ireland Office was very glad to hear his comments about the work of the Department of Commerce, and the role which Courtaulds play generally in Northern Ireland.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, has been sitting at my shoulder during the debate—muttering in my ear in a quite rebellious manner. I must remember to have a word with the Whips on Monday. Of course, he, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, within hours of the announcement being made, had come to me about the closure and its impact and about what should be done further for constituents.
I hope that the company will realise that although we shall have had nearly one and a half hours for this Adjournment debate, whereas the normal time is 30 minutes, the only thing limiting it to the one and a half hours is the procedure


of the House and the fact that we cannot go beyond 10.30 p.m. I hope that the company will take this as a measure of the strength and depth of feeling that exists in the House and the disquiet here over the effect of these closures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince said that it came as a shock to him when he heard the announcement. Equally, it came as a shock to the Government. We shared the disappointment that he and other hon. Members have expressed at the fact that only the minimum notice of 90 days was given of the intended closure. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, if ever there were a vindication of the Government's Employment Protection Act, it was this. One wonders how little the notice might otherwise have been, as the company clearly intended to give only that notice which legally it was required to give.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and other members of the Government have asked the company to consider extending the 90-day period, but as yet the company has made no positive response to this request. The Government have anticipated the points that hon. Members have made, and we have certainly impressed upon the company the points that hon. Members have wanted to put tonight. I shall see that these are reiterated to the company in the light of this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince expressed concern about the future of Harwood Hosiery, another Courtaulds unit in his constituency. As he was, I am sure, expressing the disquiet of many of his constituents, I think that it would be appropriate, although it is not strictly on the actual Skelmersdale factory issue, if I give certain reassurances.
We have been in touch with Courtaulds about Harwood Hosiery because of the rumours that have been circulating. According to Courtaulds, it is quite common for there to be short-time working just before Christmas in this particular sector of the industry, and this year Courtaulds will be introducing some short-time working in all their United Kingdom hosiery plants except for the two under notice of closure. This will not involve closure but will be done by cutting out the odd shift, perhaps, or extending the Christmas holiday. Short-time working will extend from 25th

November to 1st January. Normal working should resume after that date.
I am sorry that I kept fairly closely to the words with which I have been supplied, but knowing the extent of the concern there must be in Skelmersdale about the possibility of even further closures, I hope that I have gone some way towards alleviating the worries that my hon. Friend has expressed. Indeed, Courtaulds actually denied absolutely that it had any plans to close Harwood Hosiery. I hope that that is some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
As to statistics, while we recognise the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), is representing—I shall not go into these in detail now because so many issues have been raised on which I want to touch—I would only say that in a sense my hon. Friend has a point, because of the differences between the travel-to-work area and the geographical size of Skelmersdale. On the other hand, this does not mean that the Government, in assessing the needs of an area, are not fully conscious of the situation even within its travel-to-work area. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Employment will probably contact my hon. Friend further about that matter.
There have been comments about the paradox of capital-intensive industry—that the more money one puts in, the fewer jobs there are. Equally, however, if money is not put in, at the end of the day there are no jobs. It is a great tribute to the industry that the industrial relations over this period of capital restructuring have been incredibly good because workers and employers have recognised that it is in their interests to be among the most efficient and effective in the world. So although it is a paradox, we should be making a terrible error if we took the naive solution of saying that all capital investment is bad because fewer people in the end get jobs.

Mr. Noble: Would my right hon. Friend accept that unless something is done soon about imports, capital investment will stop anyway due to lack of confidence?

Mr. Williams: I am trying to work my way through the points raised. My hon. Friend certainly raised this matter clearly, as did my hon. Friend the


Member for Ince and two other hon. Members when they met the Prime Minister and myself only last week to discuss the problems of textiles in the north-west end of Skelmersdale.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of Leyland Motors and the components factory. He referred to it also when he met the Prime Minister and myself. I have checked on this. There does not appear to be any plan for a new components factory. There is a project in relation to the bus and truck division which it is envisaged will be at Leyland, near Preston. If my hon. Friend wants to know more about that—if that is what he has in mind—he and I can have a word about it. I shall probably see him on Monday afternoon when he comes with another deputation.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend has touched on a difficult problem. St. Helens has one of these Leyland bus depots in my constituency. There is some development in this direction. I hope that he will not go ahead with any horse trading.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend should not jump to conclusions. All that I was doing was explaining that there was no project such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince had mentioned. I said that the only project of which I was aware was this project—

Mr. Spriggs: I am watching you.

Mr. Williams: I did not say that I intended to raid my hon. Friend's constituency to see how much employment I could snaffle from his area. I am sure that his constituents will be very pleased that, literally within seconds of anyone mentioning his locality, he is on his feet to defend it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince also referred to the need for skillcentres. My Department and the Department of Employment have discussed this. Again, I am speaking to another Department's brief—and a very good one it is—but my understanding is that the Training Services Agency recently carried out a review of the training needs of Skelmersdale and at that stage concluded that they were met by the skillcentres at Liverpool, St. Helens and Kirkby.
But—it is an important "but"—approaches were made by the Merseyside Training Council and the Merseyside Development Corporation, as a result of which, and the representations made by my hon. Friend, the TSA is now urgently considering whether some additional training facilities can be provided in Skelmersdale itself. So the question has been reopened and I am sure that we all hope that the outcome will be satisfactory for my hon. Friend.
Several hon. Members have referred to the need for an inquiry. I am sure that all Ministers who are present—an unusual range of Ministers for an Adjournment debate have been present tonight—will acknowledge the point made. The Government have said that they are willing to consider an inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment told me while he was on the Front Bench that he has himself already had certain discussions with some of the relevant union leaders. We undertook that the relevant unions would be consulted before an inquiry is set up. I hope that the Government decision on whether to have an inquiry will be announced soon. I shall convey to my colleagues the strength of my hon. Friend's feeling on this matter. I am sure that it would clear the air and lead to positive results.
Hon. Members referred to the Courtaulds new factory at the Belmont. The company say that the equipment at the Belmont factory is for the manufacture of different fabrics from those produced at the Skelmersdale factory. The Belmont factory is not yet being used. Government funds were available along with the normal regional facilities. The company received regional development grants which, as hon. Members know, are virtually automatic. But, because we have been unable to get any assurance from the firm on a date for opening the plant, the company was asked on 1st November for repayment of the regional development grant.
I trust that hon. Members who asked for scrutiny will accept that as evidence that the Government do scrutinise the use of funds. It is normal practice to ask for a refund if money is not used as originally anticipated or if the project


does not reach fulfilment. The Government monitor the grants against the purpose for which they were allocated and they are therefore subject to accountability. In fairness to Courtaulds which has been heavily criticised this evening, I must say that it will be investing about £70 million in this country this year. It is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions about the firm's motives but it is still a major investor in this country and therefore in its economic future.
I took up the issue of bringing forward the hospital project with the relevant department. I understand that the matter was raised as recently as August with the Department of Health and Social Security and considered sympathetically. Correspondence was copied to the North-West Regional Health Authority and the Lancashire Area Health Authority. I am advised that in the light of the current review of provisions for the Ormskirk district it is likely that the existing Ormskirk hospital will be developed as

the district general hospital and that a community hospital will be provided at Skelmersdale.
The plans are still at the investigatory stage and, in view of the current financial situation, it is difficult to give a firm assurance about a starting date. However, my hon. Friend's views were put to the Prime Minister, who has drawn them to the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Services who will ensure that the North-West Regional Health Authority is made aware of the situation.
I am sorry that we have not been able to cover all the issues in the debate, but I shall be pleased to meet hon. Members to discuss these matters in detail. I shall be meeting a deputation on Monday and perhaps we can have further discussions then.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.